Bonilla

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified in the order as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. The complaints were nearly identical. They named various federal and state judges and court officials as defendants and sought relief concerning courts. The order also states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition in this court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

Filing-fee ruling

The court addressed Bonilla’s potential requests to proceed without paying the filing fee, known as proceeding in forma pauperis. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court said Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without the fee unless he showed that he faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaint. The court found that these allegations did not show such danger. Bonilla therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

Other grounds identified by the court

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not separately analyze each case or explain which cited rule applied to each lawsuit.

Disposition

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a basis to reasonably question the judge’s impartiality, even though Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in one case. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.