Bonilla v. McConnell

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Steven Wayne BONILLA, Case No.: 24-cv-2501-AGS-MMP

4 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 5 vs. AND CLOSING CASE

6 Judge Judith McCONNELL, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 9 Inmate Steven Wayne Bonilla is suing defendants for civil-rights violations under 10 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because he failed to pay the filing fee and is not entitled to proceed in 11 forma pauperis, the case is dismissed without prejudice. 12 DISCUSSION 13 Typically, parties instituting a civil action in a United States district court must pay 14 filing fees of $405.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Absent payment, the action may proceed 15 only if the plaintiff seeks and the court grants permission to proceed in forma pauperis. See 16 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Hymas v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 73 F.4th 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2023) 17 (noting that, absent leave to proceed in forma pauperis, a plaintiff’s case cannot go on 18 “unless and until the fee[s] [a]re paid”). 19 Prisoners like Bonilla may request in forma pauperis status, but they “face an 20 additional hurdle.” See Moore v. Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 657 F.3d 890, 892 21 (9th Cir. 2011). To further “the congressional goal of reducing frivolous prisoner litigation 22 in federal court,” prisoners cannot proceed in forma pauperis once they “have, while 23 incarcerated, on 3 or more prior occasions had claims dismissed due to their frivolity, 24 25 26 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional 27 administrative fee of $55. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023). The $55 administrative fee 28 1 maliciousness, or failure to state a claim,” Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir. 2 1997) (cleaned up), unless that inmate “is under imminent danger of serious physical 3 injury,” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 4 When courts review a dismissal to determine whether it counts as one of these three 5 strikes, “the style of the dismissal or the procedural posture is immaterial” because “the 6 central question is whether the dismissal rang the PLRA [Prison Litigation Reform Act] 7 bells of frivolous, malicious, or failure to state a claim.” El-Shaddai v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 8 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016) (cleaned up). Prior cases are considered strikes, then, “even if 9 the district court styles such dismissal as a denial of the prisoner’s application to file the 10 action without prepayment of the full filing fee.” O’Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 11 (9th Cir. 2008). Defendants generally carry the initial burden to produce evidence 12 demonstrating prisoners are no longer entitled to in forma pauperis status based on their 13 litigation history, but “in some instances, the district court docket may be sufficient to show 14 that a prior dismissal satisfies at least one of the criteria under § 1915(g) and therefore 15 counts as a strike.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1120 (9th Cir. 2005). 16 While incarcerated, Bonilla has had dozens of previous civil actions dismissed on 17 the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief 18 may be granted—which makes him ineligible to proceed in forma pauperis. See 19 United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980) (holding that “a court may take 20 judicial notice of its own records in other cases, as well as the records of [different courts] 21 in other cases”); see also Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2) (judicial-notice rule). Indeed, in 22 dismissing five civil actions for failing to state a claim, an earlier court already informed 23 Bonilla that under “28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he no longer qualifies to proceed in forma 24 pauperis in any civil rights action.” In re Bonilla, Nos. C 11–6306 CW (PR), C 11–6307 25 CW (PR), C 12–0026 CW (PR), C 12–0027 CW (PR), C 12–0206 CW (PR), 2012 WL 26 216401, at *3, n.1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2012); see id. at *1 (noting Bonilla’s litigation 27 history, including 34 pro se civil rights actions in the Northern District of California alone, 28 1 || which were dismissed “because the allegations in the complaints [did] not state a claim for 2 ||relief under § 1983”). 3 Nor does Bonilla meet the “imminent danger of serious physical injury” exception 4 ||under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Imminent danger requires an allegation that a harm is “ready 5 take place” or “hanging threateningly over one’s head.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 6 || 1047, 1056 (9th Cir. 2007) (cleaned up). That danger must also “stem[] from the violations 7 || of law alleged in [the] complaint.” Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th 692, 701 (9th Cir. 2022). Bonilla 8 claims his arrest warrant was based on a false affidavit resulting in a void Alameda County 9 || criminal judgment. (ECF 1, at 2-3.) Nothing in his complaint satisfies the imminent-danger 10 || exception. 11 CONCLUSION 12 Thus, Bonilla’s case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to pay the 13 statutory and administrative $405 civil filing fees. Because Bonilla is not entitled to 14 || proceed in forma pauperis, the Clerk of Court is directed to close the case and to reject any 15 || further documents for filing in this matter except a timely Notice of Appeal. Bonilla would 16 |/not be entitled to in forma pauperis status on any such appeal, as this Court “certifies in 17 || writing” that an appeal would be frivolous and “not taken in good faith.” See 28 U.S.C. 18 § 1915(a)(3). 19 Dated: January 20, 2025 20 f — 21 59 Hon. Andrew G. Schopler United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 3