Bonilla v. Simmons et al

Filing 3

ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION for Failure to Pay Filing Fee Required By 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 1/7/2025. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (maq)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA,
CDCR #J-48500,

Case No.: 24-cv-02371-AJB-DDL
ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL
ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY
FILING FEE REQUIRED BY
28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)

Plaintiff,

12
vs.

13
14
15
16

JAMES S. SIMMONS, Judge;
KAREN S. CRAWFORD, Judge;
JOHN DOES 1-1000,
Defendants.

17
18
19

Plaintiff Steven Wayne Bonilla (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and currently

20

incarcerated at California Medical Facility, has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to

21

42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with a Request for Judicial Notice. See ECF Nos. 1, 2. Plaintiff

22

has not filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this matter, nor has he paid

23

the initial civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).

24

For the reasons explained below, the Court DISMISSES the case and DENIES the

25

request for judicial notice as moot.

26

///

27

///

28

///
1
24-cv-02371-AJB-DDL

1

I.

FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE OR REQUEST IFP STATUS

2

Any person filing a civil case such as this one must pay a filing fee of $405. See 28

3

U.S.C. § 1914(a).1 The case may only go forward without the plaintiff paying the entire

4

filing fee if the court grants him permission to proceed IFP—which means as a person

5

without the money or resources to afford it. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047,

6

1052 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Cervantes”); cf. Hymas v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 73 F.4th 763,

7

765 (9th Cir. 2023) (“[W]here [an] IFP application is denied altogether, Plaintiff’s case

8

[cannot] proceed unless and until the fee[s] [a]re paid.”).

9

The statute that sets out the rules for this is 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Section 1915(a)(2)

10

requires all persons who want to pursue a case without paying the filing fee to file an

11

affidavit that includes a statement of all assets, or things of value, the plaintiff possesses,

12

and demonstrates his inability to pay the filing fee. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d

13

1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015).

14

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) also requires prisoners to submit a

15

certified copy of their trust fund account statement, or an institutional equivalent) for the

16

6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint. See 28 U.S.C.

17

§ 1915(a)(2); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). “While the previous

18

version of the IFP statute granted courts the authority to waive fees for any person ‘unable

19

to pay[,]’ . . . the PLRA amended the IFP statute to include a carve-out for prisoners: under

20

the current version of the IFP statute, ‘if a prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal

21

in forma pauperis, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee.’”

22

Hymas, 73 F.4th at 767 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)). Section 1915(b) “provides a

23

structured timeline for collecting this fee.” Id.(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)–(2)).

24

///

25
26
1

27
28

In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil plaintiffs must pay an additional 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 additional $55 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. Id.
2
24-cv-02371-AJB-DDL

1

Plaintiff has not paid the $405 filing and administrative fee required. He has also

2

failed to file a properly supported motion to proceed IFP. See Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234.

3

Therefore, his case cannot continue. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1051.

4

II.

5
6

LEAVE TO PROCEED IFP
Even if the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a motion to proceed IFP, however, it

finds he is not entitled to that privilege for the reasons set out below.

7

A.

8

“All persons, not just prisoners, may seek IFP status.” Moore v. Maricopa Cnty.

9

Sheriff’s Office, 657 F.3d 890, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). Prisoners, like Plaintiff, however, “face

10

an additional hurdle.” Id. In addition to requiring prisoners to “pay the full amount of a

11

filing fee” in installments for the suits or appeals they launch, see Bruce v. Samuels, 577

12

U.S. 82, 85 (2016) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)–(2), Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182,

13

1185 (9th Cir. 2015), the PLRA also amended Section 1915 to preclude the privilege to

14

proceed IFP:

15
16
17
18

Standard of Review

. . . if [a] prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or
detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United
States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, unless the prisoner is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury.

19

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). This subdivision is commonly known as the “PLRA’s ‘three strikes’

20

rule.” Washington v. Los Angeles Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 833 F.3d 1048, 1054 (9th Cir.

21

2016). “Pursuant to § 1915(g), a prisoner with three strikes or more cannot proceed IFP.”

22

Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1116 n.1. The PLRA furthers “the congressional goal of reducing

23

frivolous prisoner litigation in federal court.” Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1312 (9th

24

Cir. 1997).

25

“Strikes are prior cases or appeals, brought while the plaintiff was a prisoner, which

26

were dismissed on the ground that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim,”

27

Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1116 n.1 (internal quotations omitted), “even if the district court

28

styles such dismissal as a denial of the prisoner’s application to file the action without
3
24-cv-02371-AJB-DDL

1

prepayment of the full filing fee.” O’Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008).

2

When courts “review a dismissal to determine whether it counts as a strike, the style of the

3

dismissal or the procedural posture is immaterial. Instead, the central question is whether

4

the dismissal ‘rang the PLRA bells of frivolous, malicious, or failure to state a claim.’” El-

5

Shaddai v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Blakely v. Wards, 738

6

F.3d 607, 615 (4th Cir. 2013)).

7

Once a prisoner has accumulated three strikes, he is prohibited by Section 1915(g)

8

from pursuing any other IFP action in federal court unless he can show he is facing

9

“imminent danger of serious physical injury.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Cervantes, 493

10

F.3d at 1051?52 (noting Section 1915(g)’s exception for IFP complaints which “make[] a

11

plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at

12

the time of filing.”). In addition to being “imminent,” that danger must also be “both fairly

13

traceable to unlawful conduct alleged in [the] complaint and redressable by the court.” Ray

14

v. Lara, 31 F.4th 692, 701 (9th Cir. 2022).

15

B.

16

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint and finds it fails to contain any

17

“plausible allegations” to suggest that he “faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical

18

injury’ at the time of filing.” Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1055 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)).

19

Rather, Plaintiff alleges he was arrested based on a fraudulent arrest warrant affidavit, and

20

is the victim of a conspiratorial and discriminatory Alameda County criminal prosecution.

21

See ECF No. 1 at 2?3. He seeks to sue federal judges for subsequently refusing to “void”

22

that conviction. Id. at 3.

Discussion

23

Thus, while Plaintiff has not moved to proceed IFP in this case; it would be futile

24

for him to do so. Defendants typically carry the initial burden to produce evidence

25

demonstrating a prisoner is not entitled to proceed IFP. Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1119.

26

However, “in some instances, the district court docket may be sufficient to show that []

27

prior dismissal[s] satisfy[y] at least one on the criteria under § 1915(g)” and therefore count

28

as strikes against him. Id. at 1120. That is true here.
4
24-cv-02371-AJB-DDL

1

Based on the dockets of many court proceedings available on PACER,2 this Court

2

finds that Plaintiff Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as CDCR #J-48500, while

3

incarcerated, has had dozens of prisoner civil actions or appeals dismissed on the grounds

4

that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be

5

granted. See In re Steven Bonilla, 2012 WL 216401, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2012) (noting

6

Plaintiff’s litigation history in the Northern District of California, including the dismissal

7

of 34 pro se civil rights actions between June 1 and October 31, 2011 alone, which were

8

dismissed “because the allegations in [his] complaints d[id] not state a claim for relief

9

under § 1983.”); id. at *3 (“The following five actions are DISMISSED without prejudice

10

and without leave to amend for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted:

11

Bonilla v. Superior Court of Alameda County, C 11-6306; Bonilla v. Alameda County

12

District Attorney’s Office, C 11-6307; Bonilla v. California Supreme Court, C 12-0026;

13

Bonilla v. Cullen, C 12-0027; Bonilla v. California Supreme Court, C 12-0206.”); id. at *3

14

n.1 (“The Court recently informed Plaintiff that, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g),

15

he no longer qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil rights action.”) (citing In

16

re Steven Bonilla, Nos. C11-3180, et seq. CW (PR), Order of Dismissal at 6:23-7:19)).

17

Accordingly, because Plaintiff has, while incarcerated, accumulated far more than

18

the three strikes permitted by Section 1915(g), and he fails to make any plausible allegation

19

that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed this case, he

20

is not entitled to the privilege of proceeding IFP. See Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1055;

21

Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1180 (9th Cir. 1999) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

22

“does not prevent all prisoners from accessing the courts; it only precludes prisoners with

23

a history of abusing the legal system from continuing to abuse it while enjoying IFP

24
25
26
27
28

2

See Kim v. Allison, 87 F.4th 994, 998 n.3 (9th Cir. 2023) (citing United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria
Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) (noting courts “may take notice of
proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have
a direct relation to matters at issue”); Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting
that courts may take judicial notice of undisputed “matters of public record”)).
5
24-cv-02371-AJB-DDL

1

status”). When a prisoner-litigant “has accumulated three prior dismissals on statutorily

2

enumerated grounds[,] . . . a court may not afford him in forma pauperis status with respect

3

to his additional civil actions.” Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 534 (2015). This is

4

because “court permission to proceed IFP is itself a matter of privilege and not right.”

5

Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984).

6

III.

CONCLUSION

7

Accordingly, the Court:

8

(1)

9

DISMISSES this case based on Plaintiff’s failure to pay the civil filing fee

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a);

10

(2)

DENIES Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice (ECF No. 2) as moot; and

11

(3)

DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter a final judgment of dismissal, close

12

the file, and accept no further documents for filing in this matter except a timely Notice of

13

Appeal, which the Court CERTIFIES would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28

14

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 7, 2025

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6

24-cv-02371-AJB-DDL