Bonilla v. Whitson
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:19-cv-07787
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Whitson, Judge Chhabria dismissed Steven Wayne Bonilla’s civil-rights case with prejudice because he could not proceed without paying and a conviction-related rule barred it.
Steven Wayne Bonilla, the plaintiff, was barred from proceeding without prepaying the filing fee and his case was dismissed with prejudice. The named defendants were John Whitson and others, including employees of the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, the office itself, and Alameda County.
What happened
Bonilla v. Whitson involved Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state inmate representing himself in a civil-rights lawsuit under federal law against employees of the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, that office, and Alameda County.
Judge Chhabria ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because his allegations did not show that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the case. The judge also ruled that, even if Bonilla’s fee application were granted, the lawsuit would be barred under a rule from Heck v. Humphrey. The case was dismissed with prejudice, and the Clerk was ordered to close it and return later documents without filing them.
Judge Chhabria also ruled that there was no reasonable basis to question his impartiality in the case. The order was dated December 4, 2019.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Whitson · No. 3:19-cv-07787
- Vince Chhabria
- Dec. 4, 2019
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state inmate, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. He sued employees of the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, and Alameda County.
Filing-fee restriction
The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without prepaying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaint. The court found that the complaint’s allegations did not show such danger. Bonilla therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other stated ground for dismissal
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s application to proceed without prepaying the fee were granted, the lawsuit would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994).
Ruling and case closure
The court dismissed the case with prejudice. It ordered the Clerk to close the case and to return, without filing, any additional documents Bonilla submitted after the case was closed.
Impartiality issue
The court also ruled that this was not a case in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Judge Chhabria cited the principle that, absent a legitimate reason for recusal, a judge has a duty to hear cases assigned to that judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.