Bonilla v. U.S. District Court

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute allowing certain civil-rights claims against government actors. He filed the federal cases without a lawyer and named various federal and state judges as defendants. The complaints were nearly identical and sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts.

The opinion states that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his custody and that he is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning that petition. The order covers the case numbers listed in the caption.

Court’s reasoning

The court explained that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That rule permits a disqualified prisoner to proceed without paying only if the prisoner was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such danger.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal principles identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The court also addressed the fact that Bonilla named the presiding judge as a defendant in one case and concluded that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reason to question the judge’s impartiality.

Disposition

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on July 12, 2023.