Bonilla v. Behnke

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints were nearly identical. They named various state courts and judges as defendants and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way state and federal courts handled his other cases.

The order lists multiple related case numbers: 23-cv-6085-PJH, 23-cv-6098-PJH, 23-cv-6099-PJH, 23-cv-6104-PJH, 23-cv-6105-PJH, 23-cv-6106-PJH, 23-cv-6112-PJH, 23-cv-6273-PJH, 23-cv-6430-PJH, 23-cv-6432-PJH, 23-cv-6436-PJH, and 23-cv-6466-PJH.

The court noted that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his detention or conviction, in which he has appointed counsel. It also noted that he is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

Reasoning

The court addressed Bonilla’s possible request to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has accumulated qualifying prior dismissals generally cannot proceed without paying unless he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. It therefore concluded that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

The court further stated that, even if a request to proceed without paying were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the principles identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not provide a separate explanation of how each cited principle applied to each case.

Disposition

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also directed the clerk to return, without filing, any additional documents Bonilla submits in the closed cases. The order was signed by United States District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.