Bonilla v. Alameda County
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:19-cv-07704
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Alameda County, Judge Chhabria dismissed Bonilla’s civil-rights case with prejudice because he did not meet the imminent-danger exception and Heck barred the lawsuit.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s case was dismissed with prejudice and closed. The caption lists Alameda County as the defendant, although the opinion describes the action as against Judge C. Don Clay. Further documents Bonilla submits after closure are to be returned without filing.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Alameda County, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state inmate representing himself, filed a civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The caption names Alameda County as the defendant, while the opinion describes the lawsuit as being against Alameda County Superior Court Judge C. Don Clay.
The court said Bonilla had previously been barred from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he showed that he faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that his allegations did not make that showing. It also said that, even if Bonilla were allowed to proceed without paying the fee, the lawsuit would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey.
Judge Vince Chhabria dismissed the case with prejudice and ordered the Clerk to close it. The Clerk was also ordered to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submits after the case is closed.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Alameda County · No. 3:19-cv-07704
- Vince Chhabria
- Nov. 26, 2019
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state inmate, filed a civil action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case caption lists Alameda County as the defendant. The opinion, however, describes the action as being against the Honorable C. Don Clay, an Alameda County Superior Court judge.
The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee, unless he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court cited two earlier related proceedings in support of that statement.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that the allegations did not show Bonilla was in imminent danger at the time of filing. As a result, the court held that he could not proceed without paying the filing fee. The court separately stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the fee were granted, the lawsuit would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994).
The court also addressed whether the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned and concluded that this was not a case requiring the judge to step aside.
Disposition
Judge Vince Chhabria ordered that the case be dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk was ordered to close the case and return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submits after the case is closed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.