Steven W. Bonilla v. Stout

Filing 19

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Second and Third Motions for Reconsideration signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 1/11/2019. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
JUDGE DEAN T. STOUT,

15

Case No. 1:18-cv-00700-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND
AND THIRD MOTIONS FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(ECF Nos. 17, 18)

Defendant.

16
Plaintiff Steven Wayne Bonilla (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner, proceeded pro se in this civil

17
18

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

On June 19, 2018, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings that Plaintiff was subject

20

to the three strikes bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and his complaint did not satisfy the imminent

21

danger exception. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the action be dismissed, without

22

prejudice, due to Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee. (ECF No. 9.) On August 22, 2018, after

23

a de novo review of the case, the Court adopted the findings and recommendations in full and

24

dismissed this action. (ECF No. 13.) Judgment was entered the same date. (ECF No. 14.)
On October 29, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 15.) The

25
26

motion was denied, as Plaintiff presented no grounds for reconsideration of the Court’s final order

27

and judgment dismissing this action. (ECF No. 16.)

28

///
1

Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s objections to the Court’s ruling and a call for the

1
2

disbarment of Magistrate Judge McAuliffe, filed November 14, 2018, and Plaintiff’s notice

3

alleging violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242 by the undersigned, filed November 30, 2018. (ECF Nos.

4

17, 18.) In his filings, Plaintiff repeats his attempts to overturn an Alameda County conviction by

5

arguing that the trial court’s ruling is a void judgment. Plaintiff argues that both the undersigned

6

and Magistrate Judge McAuliffe have deprived him of his rights under the Constitution by

7

refusing to find that his conviction is void on its face. (Id.) The Court construes these

8

submissions as Plaintiff’s second and third motions for reconsideration.

9

As Plaintiff’s filings again fail to raise any basis for overturning the Court’s ruling that he

10

is obligated to pay the filing fee in this action, and that he failed to do so, the Court finds no basis

11

to grant Plaintiff relief from the judgment. The Court further finds that the requests for sanctions

12

or other legal action against the undersigned or Magistrate Judge McAuliffe are without merit.

13

The Court strongly discourages Plaintiff from submitting additional filings based on the same

14

arguments he has now repeatedly presented, and that have been repeatedly rejected by this Court

15

and others.1 Further submissions to this closed action, based on these same arguments, will

16

be stricken from the record.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s second and third motions for reconsideration, (ECF Nos. 17, 18),

17
18

are DENIED.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 11, 2019
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court notes that in 2018 alone, Plaintiff filed more than 100 civil rights actions and habeas corpus petitions, all
also attempting to obtain relief related to Plaintiff’s Alameda County conviction, which has resulted in Plaintiff being
declared a vexatious litigant. See Bonilla v. Fresno County, Case No. 2:18-cv-02544-JAM-KJN (E.D. Cal.).

2