Bonilla v. Gonzalez Rogers

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified by the court as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 state and federal courts handled his other cases.

The court also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court with appointed counsel, and that he was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. Those matters were background to the court’s ruling on these cases.

Reasons for Dismissal

The court held that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute disqualifies a prisoner from proceeding without fees after certain prior filings unless 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 held that, even if an application to proceed without fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not reach the underlying merits of Bonilla’s claims. It also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a reason to question the undersigned judge’s impartiality, and noted that Bonilla named that judge as a defendant in three of the cases without making specific allegations.

Disposition

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