Bonilla v. White
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:19-cv-06299
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. White, Judge Chhabria dismissed Bonilla’s civil-rights case because he showed no imminent danger and another legal rule barred the lawsuit.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s case was dismissed with prejudice; the named judicial defendants were no longer required to litigate this action.
What happened
Bonilla v. White involved Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state inmate representing himself, who sued several United States District Court judges under a civil-rights law.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because he did not show that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed the case. The court also said that, even if it allowed him to proceed without paying, another legal rule would bar the lawsuit.
Judge Vince Chhabria dismissed Bonilla v. White with prejudice, found that his impartiality could not reasonably be questioned, and directed the clerk to close the case and return later documents without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. White · No. 3:19-cv-06299
- Vince Chhabria
- Oct. 31, 2019
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state inmate, filed this civil action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Jeffrey S. White, Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, Vince G. Chhabria, Howard R. Lloyd, Richard Seeborg, Beth Labson Freeman, and Claudia Wilken, identified in the opinion as United States District Court judges.
The opinion states that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without prepaying the filing fee under the “three strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision permits such a litigant to proceed without prepayment only if he was facing imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that the allegations did not show Bonilla faced imminent danger at the time of filing. It therefore ruled that he could not proceed without prepaying the filing fee. The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without prepayment were granted, the lawsuit would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The opinion does not describe the underlying allegations in detail or explain which claims Heck would bar.
The court also stated that this was not a case in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Disposition
The case was dismissed with prejudice. The clerk was directed to close the case and return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted after the case was closed. Judge Vince Chhabria signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.