Bonilla v. Benitez et al
Filing
2
ORDER DISMISSING Civil Action for Failure to Pay Filing Fees Required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) and for Failing to State a Claim Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915a(b)(1). Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 1/29/2025.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rxc)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Case No.: 3:25-cv-00095-JO-AHG
STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA
CDCR #J-48500,
ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL
ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY
FILING FEES REQUIRED BY 28
U.S.C. § 1914(a) AND FOR FAILING
TO STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT
TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)
Plaintiff,
vs.
ROGER T. BENITEZ, et al.,
Defendants.
17
18
19
Plaintiff Steve Wayne Bonilla, a prisoner at California Medical Facility in Vacaville,
California, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. 1.
20
The Court dismisses this complaint because Bonilla has not paid the $405 filing fee
21
required to initiate a civil lawsuit. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). While the Court would typically
22
grant prisoner-plaintiffs leave to file an in forma pauperis motion, he has abused that
23
privilege so many times in the past that he is precluded from doing so now. 28 U.S.C.
24
§ 1915(g). A prisoner with three “strikes,” i.e., prior civil cases or appeals dismissed as
25
frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim, cannot proceed IFP unless they make
26
allegations of imminent danger. Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1116 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005).
27
Bonilla is a serial litigant who makes no plausible allegations of imminent danger. See In
1
3:25-cv-00095-JO-AHG
1
re Steven Bonilla, 2012 WL 216401, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2012) (noting Plaintiff’s
2
litigation history which includes dismissal of 34 actions between June 1 and October 31,
3
2011 alone). 1 The Court therefore precludes him from proceeding with this action without
4
payment.
5
Even if Bonilla were eligible to proceed, his claims would still fail because he
6
impermissibly seeks to vacate his state criminal judgment through the vehicle of a § 1983
7
lawsuit. Because a habeas corpus action is the sole federal remedy for state prisoners
8
wishing to challenge to the validity of a criminal conviction or sentence, a § 1983 suit
9
cannot be used as “a collateral attack on [an individual’s] conviction[.]”
10
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 484 (1994) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). The
11
Court dismisses this complaint without leave to amend because additional allegations could
12
not cure this legal deficiency. Carrico v. City & County of San Francisco, 656 F.3d 1002,
13
1008 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that dismissal without leave to amend is appropriate if
14
“amendment would be futile”).
Heck v.
15
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this complaint without leave to amend. The
16
Clerk of the Court is to CLOSE the case and accept no further documents for filing in this
17
matter except a timely Notice of Appeal, which the Court CERTIFIES would not be taken
18
in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
19
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 29, 2025
22
_____________________________________
Honorable Jinsook Ohta
United States District Judge
23
24
25
26
27
1
In fact, Bonilla has filed so many cases attacking the validity of his 1995 conviction, the San
Francisco Chronicle has identified him as one of the “most prolific litigants in modern U.S. history.” See
Rachel Swan, ‘Method to his madness’: This man may be California’s most litigious person, S.F.
Chronicle, May 27, 2024, available at https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/vexatious-litigantdeath-row-19424807.php (last visited Jan. 27, 2025).
2
3:25-cv-00095-JO-AHG
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?