Bonilla v. Wilken

Background

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

Rulings

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 complaint. The court found that his allegations did not show such imminent danger, so he 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 rules and precedents identified in the opinion, including Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The court therefore dismissed the cases with prejudice.

The court also concluded that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a basis to question the undersigned judge’s impartiality. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.