Bonilla v. Smith
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:19-cv-07711
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Smith, Judge Chhabria dismissed the case with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying fees and his claims were barred by Heck.
Steven Wayne Bonilla, whose case was dismissed with prejudice; the defendants were no longer required to litigate the closed case.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Smith, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state inmate representing himself, sued many judges and private citizens under a federal civil-rights law. He sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.
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 of his filing history, he could not proceed without paying the fee. The court also said that, even if it granted that permission, the lawsuit would be barred under a rule from Heck v. Humphrey.
The court dismissed the case with prejudice and ordered the Clerk to close it and return any later documents Bonilla submitted. Judge Vince Chhabria also concluded that there was no reasonable basis to question his impartiality.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Smith · No. 3:19-cv-07711
- Vince Chhabria
- Nov. 29, 2019
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state inmate, filed a civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He represented himself and sued many judges and private citizens. The opinion does not describe the underlying factual allegations in detail.
Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute allows such a person to proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed it.
Court’s reasoning
The court held that the complaint’s allegations did not show that Bonilla was in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of filing. He therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court also stated that, even if Bonilla’s application to proceed without paying the fee were granted, the lawsuit would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, which the court cited as the applicable rule. The opinion does not provide further explanation of how that rule applied to Bonilla’s claims.
The court separately concluded that this was not a case in which the presiding judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned.
Disposition
The court dismissed the case with prejudice. It ordered the Clerk to close the case and return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted after the case was closed. Judge Vince Chhabria signed the order on November 29, 2019.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.