Bonilla v. Marin County
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:19-cv-07285
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Marin County, Judge Chhabria dismissed the case with prejudice because Bonilla did not show imminent danger and the lawsuit was barred under Heck.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the defendant identified in the case; the opinion’s caption names Marin County, while its body identifies Judge Kelly V. Simmons as the defendant.
What happened
Bonilla v. Marin County involved Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state inmate representing himself in a civil-rights lawsuit under a federal law allowing claims against state officials. The caption names Marin County as the defendant, while the opinion describes the action as being against Marin County Superior Court Judge Kelly V. Simmons.
The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed the case. Because of that finding and Bonilla’s prior disqualification from the court’s fee-waiver status, he could not proceed without paying under that status. The court also said that, even if the fee-waiver request were granted, the lawsuit would be barred under a rule from Heck v. Humphrey. The case was dismissed with prejudice.
Judge Chhabria also ruled that there was no reasonable basis to question his impartiality. He directed the clerk to close the case and return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted after closure.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Marin County · No. 3:19-cv-07285
- Vince Chhabria
- Nov. 20, 2019
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state inmate, filed a civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. Section 1983 allows a person to seek relief for certain violations of federal rights by someone acting under state authority. The case caption identifies Marin County as the defendant. The body of the order, however, describes the lawsuit as being against the Honorable Kelly V. Simmons, identified as a Marin County Superior Court judge.
Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding in forma pauperis, meaning under the statutory status that permits a qualifying litigant to proceed without the ordinary filing fee, unless he showed that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court cited 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and two earlier proceedings involving Bonilla.
Reasons for Dismissal
The court determined that the allegations did not show Bonilla was in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of filing. It therefore concluded that he could not proceed in forma pauperis.
The court gave an additional ground for dismissal: even if Bonilla’s request to proceed in forma pauperis had been granted, the lawsuit would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994). The order did not provide further explanation of how Heck applied. The court dismissed the case with prejudice.
Recusal and Case Closure
The court also concluded that this was not a case in which the presiding judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned. The order cited the principle that, absent a legitimate reason for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide assigned cases.
The clerk was directed to close the case and to 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.