Bonilla v. Mayfield

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and condemned prisoner, filed multiple self-represented civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The cases included 23-cv-1282-PJH, 23-cv-1415-PJH, 23-cv-1416-PJH, 23-cv-1575-PJH, 23-cv-1576-PJH, 23-cv-1577-PJH, 23-cv-1579-PJH, 23-cv-1580-PJH, 23-cv-1581-PJH, 23-cv-1582-PJH, 23-cv-1625-PJH, 23-cv-1627-PJH, 23-cv-1667-PJH, 23-cv-1668-PJH, 23-cv-1669-PJH, 23-cv-1670-PJH, 23-cv-1671-PJH, 23-cv-1673-PJH, 23-cv-1728-PJH, 23-cv-1729-PJH, 23-cv-1730-PJH, 23-cv-1731-PJH, and 23-cv-1732-PJH. He named various federal and state judges and county officials as defendants. The court said the complaints were nearly identical and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases in state and federal court.

The opinion also states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

Proceeding Without Paying Filing Fees

The court addressed Bonilla’s request, or possible request, to proceed without paying the filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified from proceeding without fees may do so only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified under this provision.

The court found that the allegations in these complaints did not show that Bonilla faced imminent danger at the time of filing. It therefore concluded that he could not proceed without paying the filing fees.

Other Bars to the Lawsuits

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees 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 does not separately explain which specific doctrine applied to which case or claim.

Ruling

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and ordered the clerk to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.

Bonilla named the undersigned judge as a defendant in one of the cases, but the court said he presented no legitimate basis for questioning the judge’s impartiality because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.