Bonilla

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified by the court as a state prisoner and condemned prisoner, filed multiple self-represented civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints were nearly identical. They named various federal and state judges and county officials and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other state and federal court cases. The court also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his detention with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

Proceeding Without Paying the Filing Fee

The court addressed Bonilla’s ability to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court said Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying unless he showed that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at that time. As a result, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

Other Bars Cited by the Court

The court stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying 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 opinion did not provide separate claim-by-claim analyses of those doctrines.

Ruling

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The court also rejected the suggestion that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings required the judge’s recusal, stating that the filings did not create a situation in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.