3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5 * * *
6 BRYAN P. BONHAM, Case No. 3:25-cv-00141-MMD-CLB
7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 STATE OF NEVADA, et al., 9 Defendants. 10
11 I. SUMMARY 12 Pro se Plaintiff Bryan Bonham, an inmate in the custody of the Nevada Department 13 of Corrections, has filed a document titled “Petitioners/Plaintiffs [sic] Appeal of Decision 14 of the Nevada Supreme Court or Writ of Mandamus” and an application to proceed in 15 forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF Nos. 1, 1-1.) Bonham later filed a “Memorandum” supporting 16 his contentions. (ECF No. 3.) The Court denies Bonham’s IFP application because he 17 has six strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) and because his initiating 18 document does not plausibly allege that he faced an ongoing danger of serious physical 19 injury when he filed it. The Court dismisses this action without leave to amend because it 20 does not have jurisdiction under Rooker-Feldman to consider Bonham’s claims 21 challenging and seeking relief from state court judgments entered against him. 22 II. DISCUSSION 23 A. Three Strikes 24 The PLRA provides that no prisoner may “bring a civil action or appeal a judgment 25 in a civil action or proceeding” under IFP status “if [he] has, on 3 or more prior occasions, 26 while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the 27 United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to 28 state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent 2 Andrews v. Cervantes that the exception to § 1915(g) applies only if the prisoner makes 3 a plausible allegation that he or she faced “an ongoing danger” of serious physical injury 4 “at the time the complaint was filed.” See 493 F.3d 1047, 1055-56 (9th Cir. 2007). “The 5 prisoner may meet this requirement by ‘alleging that prison officials continue with a 6 practice that has injured him or others similarly situated in the past,’ or that there is a 7 continuing effect resulting from such a practice.” Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1190 8 (9th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up) (quoting Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1057). If the prisoner satisfies 9 the exception, it applies to the entire complaint, not on a claim-by-claim basis and not for 10 only certain types of relief. See Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1052. 11 1. Bonham has six strikes under the PLRA. 12 Bonham initiated this lawsuit on March 12, 2025. (ECF No. 1.) On December 14, 13 2017, Bonham commenced the action styled Bonham v. Williams, Case No. 3:17-cv- 14 00719-MMD-WGC (“Williams”) while he was incarcerated at Lovelock Correctional 15 Center (“LCC”). (ECF No. 1-1 at 1.) On December 7, 2018, the district court dismissed 16 the action, finding that Bonham failed to state a colorable claim for relief. See Williams; 17 (ECF No. 3). This is Bonham’s first strike under the PLRA. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 18 Bonham appealed, the Ninth Circuit dismissed his appeal as frivolous, and the mandate 19 issued on October 15, 2019. See Williams; (ECF Nos. 8, 11, 13) (Appeal No. 19-15107). 20 This is Bonham’s second strike under the PLRA. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 21 On May 3, 2019, Bonham commenced the action styled Bonham v. Dzurenda, 22 Case No. 3:19-cv-00229-MMD-WGC (“Dzurenda”) while he was incarcerated at LCC. 23 (ECF No. 1-1 at 1.) On April 22, 2020, the district court dismissed the action, finding that 24 Bonham failed to state a colorable claim for relief. See Dzurenda; (ECF No. 8.) This is 25 Bonham’s third strike under the PLRA. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Bonham appealed the 26 dismissal and the subsequent order denying his motion for reconsideration, the Ninth 27 Circuit dismissed his appeal as frivolous, and the mandate issued on December 17, 2020. 28 See Dzurenda; (ECF Nos. 11, 14, 16, 17) (Appeal No. 20-15789). This is Bonham’s fourth 2 On June 6, 2019, Bonham commenced the action styled Bonham v. Minev, Case 3 No. 3:19-cv-00307-MMD-WGC (“Minev”) while he was incarcerated at LCC. (ECF No. 1- 4 1 at 1.) On June 25, 2020, the district court dismissed the action, finding that Bonham 5 failed to state a colorable claim for relief. See Minev; (ECF No. 7). This is Bonham’s fifth 6 strike under the PLRA. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Bonham appealed the dismissal, the 7 Ninth Circuit dismissed his appeal as frivolous, and the mandate issued on December 22, 8 2020. See Minev; (ECF Nos. 9, 11, 13) (Appeal No. 20-16272). This is Bonham’s sixth 9 strike under the PLRA. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 10 2. Bonham’s appeal does not satisfy § 1915(g)’s exceptions. 11 As outlined above, on six occasions before Bonham initiated this civil action, 12 federal courts dismissed civil actions and appeals that Bonham commenced while he was 13 detained or incarcerated because the proceedings were frivolous or failed to state a claim 14 upon which relief could be granted. To be granted IFP status and proceed in this action 15 without prepaying the full $405 filing fee, Bonham must plausibly allege that he faced 16 “imminent danger of serious physical injury” when he filed this action. 28 U.S.C. 17 § 1915(g). Bonham has not made this showing. Rather, he contends that the state courts 18 committed errors and violated his rights in resolving his state lawsuit and associated 19 appeals. (ECF No. 1-1.) And he asks the Court to reverse the Nevada Supreme Court’s 20 decision against him and order the state district court to reopen his lawsuit. (Id. at 10.) 21 Bonham's IFP application is therefore denied. 22 B. Rooker-Feldman Doctrine 23 “The Rooker-Feldman doctrine derives its name from two Supreme Court cases: 24 Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Company, 263 U.S. 413 (1923) and D.C. Court of Appeals v. 25 Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).” Benavidez v. Cnty. of San Diego, 993 F.3d 1134, 1142 26 (9th Cir. 2021). “Under Rooker-Feldman, a federal district court is without subject matter 27 jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the judgment of a state court.” Id. (cleaned up). “The 28 United States Supreme Court is the only federal court with jurisdiction to hear such an 2 when the federal plaintiff both asserts as [his] legal injury error or errors by the state court 3 and seeks as [his] remedy relief from the state court judgment.” Miroth v. Cnty. of Trinity, 4 136 F.4th 1141, 1151 (9th Cir. 2025) (cleaned up). Ninth Circuit “case law makes clear 5 that this doctrine applies even where the challenge to the state court decision involves 6 federal constitutional issues, including section 1983 claims.” Benavidez, 993 F.3d at 1142 7 (cleaned up).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5 * * *
6 BRYAN P. BONHAM, Case No. 3:25-cv-00141-MMD-CLB
7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 STATE OF NEVADA, et al., 9 Defendants. 10
11 I. SUMMARY 12 Pro se Plaintiff Bryan Bonham, an inmate in the custody of the Nevada Department 13 of Corrections, has filed a document titled “Petitioners/Plaintiffs [sic] Appeal of Decision 14 of the Nevada Supreme Court or Writ of Mandamus” and an application to proceed in 15 forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF Nos. 1, 1-1.) Bonham later filed a “Memorandum” supporting 16 his contentions. (ECF No. 3.) The Court denies Bonham’s IFP application because he 17 has six strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) and because his initiating 18 document does not plausibly allege that he faced an ongoing danger of serious physical 19 injury when he filed it. The Court dismisses this action without leave to amend because it 20 does not have jurisdiction under Rooker-Feldman to consider Bonham’s claims 21 challenging and seeking relief from state court judgments entered against him. 22 II. DISCUSSION 23 A. Three Strikes 24 The PLRA provides that no prisoner may “bring a civil action or appeal a judgment 25 in a civil action or proceeding” under IFP status “if [he] has, on 3 or more prior occasions, 26 while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the 27 United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to 28 state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent 2 Andrews v. Cervantes that the exception to § 1915(g) applies only if the prisoner makes 3 a plausible allegation that he or she faced “an ongoing danger” of serious physical injury 4 “at the time the complaint was filed.” See 493 F.3d 1047, 1055-56 (9th Cir. 2007). “The 5 prisoner may meet this requirement by ‘alleging that prison officials continue with a 6 practice that has injured him or others similarly situated in the past,’ or that there is a 7 continuing effect resulting from such a practice.” Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1190 8 (9th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up) (quoting Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1057). If the prisoner satisfies 9 the exception, it applies to the entire complaint, not on a claim-by-claim basis and not for 10 only certain types of relief. See Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1052. 11 1. Bonham has six strikes under the PLRA. 12 Bonham initiated this lawsuit on March 12, 2025. (ECF No. 1.) On December 14, 13 2017, Bonham commenced the action styled Bonham v. Williams, Case No. 3:17-cv- 14 00719-MMD-WGC (“Williams”) while he was incarcerated at Lovelock Correctional 15 Center (“LCC”). (ECF No. 1-1 at 1.) On December 7, 2018, the district court dismissed 16 the action, finding that Bonham failed to state a colorable claim for relief. See Williams; 17 (ECF No. 3). This is Bonham’s first strike under the PLRA. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 18 Bonham appealed, the Ninth Circuit dismissed his appeal as frivolous, and the mandate 19 issued on October 15, 2019. See Williams; (ECF Nos. 8, 11, 13) (Appeal No. 19-15107). 20 This is Bonham’s second strike under the PLRA. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 21 On May 3, 2019, Bonham commenced the action styled Bonham v. Dzurenda, 22 Case No. 3:19-cv-00229-MMD-WGC (“Dzurenda”) while he was incarcerated at LCC. 23 (ECF No. 1-1 at 1.) On April 22, 2020, the district court dismissed the action, finding that 24 Bonham failed to state a colorable claim for relief. See Dzurenda; (ECF No. 8.) This is 25 Bonham’s third strike under the PLRA. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Bonham appealed the 26 dismissal and the subsequent order denying his motion for reconsideration, the Ninth 27 Circuit dismissed his appeal as frivolous, and the mandate issued on December 17, 2020. 28 See Dzurenda; (ECF Nos. 11, 14, 16, 17) (Appeal No. 20-15789). This is Bonham’s fourth 2 On June 6, 2019, Bonham commenced the action styled Bonham v. Minev, Case 3 No. 3:19-cv-00307-MMD-WGC (“Minev”) while he was incarcerated at LCC. (ECF No. 1- 4 1 at 1.) On June 25, 2020, the district court dismissed the action, finding that Bonham 5 failed to state a colorable claim for relief. See Minev; (ECF No. 7). This is Bonham’s fifth 6 strike under the PLRA. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Bonham appealed the dismissal, the 7 Ninth Circuit dismissed his appeal as frivolous, and the mandate issued on December 22, 8 2020. See Minev; (ECF Nos. 9, 11, 13) (Appeal No. 20-16272). This is Bonham’s sixth 9 strike under the PLRA. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 10 2. Bonham’s appeal does not satisfy § 1915(g)’s exceptions. 11 As outlined above, on six occasions before Bonham initiated this civil action, 12 federal courts dismissed civil actions and appeals that Bonham commenced while he was 13 detained or incarcerated because the proceedings were frivolous or failed to state a claim 14 upon which relief could be granted. To be granted IFP status and proceed in this action 15 without prepaying the full $405 filing fee, Bonham must plausibly allege that he faced 16 “imminent danger of serious physical injury” when he filed this action. 28 U.S.C. 17 § 1915(g). Bonham has not made this showing. Rather, he contends that the state courts 18 committed errors and violated his rights in resolving his state lawsuit and associated 19 appeals. (ECF No. 1-1.) And he asks the Court to reverse the Nevada Supreme Court’s 20 decision against him and order the state district court to reopen his lawsuit. (Id. at 10.) 21 Bonham's IFP application is therefore denied. 22 B. Rooker-Feldman Doctrine 23 “The Rooker-Feldman doctrine derives its name from two Supreme Court cases: 24 Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Company, 263 U.S. 413 (1923) and D.C. Court of Appeals v. 25 Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).” Benavidez v. Cnty. of San Diego, 993 F.3d 1134, 1142 26 (9th Cir. 2021). “Under Rooker-Feldman, a federal district court is without subject matter 27 jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the judgment of a state court.” Id. (cleaned up). “The 28 United States Supreme Court is the only federal court with jurisdiction to hear such an 2 when the federal plaintiff both asserts as [his] legal injury error or errors by the state court 3 and seeks as [his] remedy relief from the state court judgment.” Miroth v. Cnty. of Trinity, 4 136 F.4th 1141, 1151 (9th Cir. 2025) (cleaned up). Ninth Circuit “case law makes clear 5 that this doctrine applies even where the challenge to the state court decision involves 6 federal constitutional issues, including section 1983 claims.” Benavidez, 993 F.3d at 1142 7 (cleaned up). And if a federal lawsuit contains a forbidden de facto appeal, then the 8 doctrine applies and works to deprive the federal district court of subject matter jurisdiction 9 over any issue raised in a suit that is “inextricably intertwined” with an issue resolved by 10 the state court’s judicial decision. Id. 11 Bonham’s initiating document contends that the Nevada Supreme Court and state 12 district court committed errors in resolving his state lawsuit and associated appeals. (ECF 13 No. 1-1.) Specifically, Bonham faults the state courts for not finding that prison officials 14 violated his federal due process rights when they deducted costs he incurred for postage 15 and photocopying from funds in his account under Nevada statutes. (Id. at 3-7.) He takes 16 issue with the Nevada Supreme Court’s interpretation of those Nevada statutes as 17 permitting the challenged deductions. (Id. at 7-10.) And he asks the Court to reverse the 18 Nevada Supreme Court’s decision against him; declare that the Nevada Supreme Court 19 and the state district court erred in their determinations against him; and order the state 20 district court to reopen his lawsuit and allow his amended complaint to proceed. (ECF 21 No. 1-1 at 10.) This action is a forbidden de facto appeal in which Bonham seeks relief 22 from state court judgments that have been entered against him. The Court lacks 23 jurisdiction under Rooker-Feldman to consider Bonham’s claims. Thus, this action is 24 dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend. 25 III. CONCLUSION 26 It is therefore ordered that the IFP application (ECF No. 1) is denied because state 27 prisoner Brian P. Bonham, NDOC #60575, has six strikes under the PLRA, and his 28 allegations do not satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)’s imminent danger exception. 1 It is further ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice and without leave 2 || to amend because the Court lacks jurisdiction under Rooker-Feldman to consider 3 || Bonham’s claims challenging and seeking relief from state judgments that have been 4 || entered against him. 5 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 6 DATED THIS 12'" Day of September 2025. 7 8 9 MIRANDAM.DU- ———‘“CO™OC™~*~:~:CS” UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28