Bonilla v. Gonzalez-Rogers

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple lawsuits without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law allowing claims against certain government officials for violating federal rights. The complaints were nearly identical. They named various federal and state judges as defendants and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way his other state and federal cases had been handled. The opinion also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state proceedings.

Filing-fee status and other bars

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 imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such imminent danger. Bonilla therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal principles discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not provide a separate claim-by-claim explanation of how each cited principle applied.

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. The court also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable basis to question the undersigned judge’s impartiality. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.