Bonilla v. Chhabria
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:19-cv-06297
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Chhabria, Judge Chhabria dismissed Bonilla’s civil-rights case with prejudice because he did not qualify for fee-free filing and Heck barred the suit.
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state inmate proceeding without a lawyer, was barred from proceeding without paying the filing fee and his case was dismissed with prejudice. The case also involved the federal and state judges he named as defendants.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Chhabria, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state inmate representing himself, sued several federal and state judges under a civil-rights law. The defendants included Vince G. Chhabria and other judges.
The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. Because Bonilla had previously been barred from proceeding without paying filing fees, the court ruled that he could not proceed without paying. The court also said that, even if it granted that request, the lawsuit would be barred under a Supreme Court rule called Heck v. Humphrey. The case was dismissed with prejudice.
Judge Chhabria rejected the suggestion that his impartiality could reasonably be questioned. He ordered the Clerk to close the case and return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted after closure.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Chhabria · No. 3:19-cv-06297
- Vince Chhabria
- Oct. 31, 2019
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state inmate, filed the case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. He sued several federal judges, Alameda County Superior Court judges, and a Marin County Superior Court judge. The opinion lists the defendants as Vince G. Chhabria, Richard Seeborg, Jeffrey S. White, Beth Labson Freeman, Howard R. Lloyd, Claudia Wilken, Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, Dolly M. Gee, Jean Rosenbluth, Clarence Don Clay, Jeffrey W. Horner, and Kelly Simmons.
Proceeding Without Paying the Filing Fee
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That restriction contains an exception when a prisoner is in immediate danger of serious physical injury at the time of filing. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show that he was in such danger. Therefore, he could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other Ground for Dismissal
The court further stated that, even if it granted Bonilla’s request to proceed without paying the fee, the lawsuit would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994). The opinion does not explain the underlying basis for applying that rule beyond stating that the lawsuit was barred under it.
Disposition
The court dismissed the case with prejudice. It also stated that the judge’s impartiality could not reasonably be questioned and declined to treat the case as one requiring the judge’s recusal. The Clerk was ordered to close the case and return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted after the case was closed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.