Bonilla v. Follett

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified in the opinion as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named various federal and state judges and county officials as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way his other cases had been handled by state and federal courts. The opinion also notes that he had a pending federal petition challenging his imprisonment with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

Proceeding Without Paying the Filing Fee

The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. It therefore ruled that he could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

Other Bars to the Lawsuits

The court further stated that, even if Bonilla had been allowed to proceed without paying the fee, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not decide the underlying merits of Bonilla’s claims.

Disposition

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also concluded that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a basis for reasonably questioning her impartiality.