Bonilla v. Clay

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute that allows claims against state actors. He filed the complaints without a lawyer. The defendants included various federal and state judges. The complaints were nearly identical and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way state and federal courts handled his other cases.

The order states that Bonilla also had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

Court’s Analysis

To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying filing fees, the court found that he was barred from doing so 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 concluded that the complaints did not show such danger.

The court further stated that, even if a fee-waiver application were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal doctrines identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The court also rejected any concern that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla’s repetitive filings, noting that the complaints did not provide specific allegations against the judge in the three cases where he was named as a defendant.

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

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.