Bonilla v. Averill

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple similar lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal law that allows certain civil-rights claims against state actors. The complaints named various state judges and court employees as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts.

The opinion states that Bonilla was a condemned prisoner with a pending federal habeas petition in the same court and was represented by appointed counsel in that matter. It also states that he was represented by counsel in state-court habeas proceedings.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the time of filing. Therefore, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the fees.

The court added that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the doctrines and authorities identified in the opinion, including the rule from Heck v. Humphrey, the abstention doctrine from Younger v. Harris, and other cited authorities. The opinion does not separately analyze the merits of Bonilla’s underlying claims.

Disposition

Judge Phyllis Hamilton ordered that the multiple cases be dismissed with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also directed to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.

Classification rationale

This is a procedural order because the court disposed of the cases based on Bonilla’s inability to proceed without paying filing fees and on legal bars to the lawsuits, without deciding the underlying civil-rights claims on their merits.