Bonilla v. Fourth Appellate District Court
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jinsook Ohta (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a civil rights complaint filed by a prisoner who had previously accumulated three 'strikes' under the Prison Litigation Reform Act and sought to challenge his state criminal conviction. The court dismissed the action without leave to amend for failure to pay filing fees and for failing to state a claim under the Heck doctrine.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the civil action for failure to pay filing fees and preclusion from in forma pauperis status.“The Court therefore precludes him from proceeding with this action without payment.” | agree with court The court correctly applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which bars prisoners with three prior dismissals for frivolousness, maliciousness, or failure to state a claim from proceeding in forma pauperis unless they are in imminent danger of serious physical injury. The order recites that the plaintiff is a serial litigant with a history of 34 dismissed actions and makes no allegations of imminent danger. Therefore, the preclusion is legally sound based on the cited statute and the recited record. |
Dismissal of the complaint for failing to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and without leave to amend.“Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this complaint without leave to amend.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that a § 1983 action cannot be used to challenge the validity of a state criminal conviction or sentence, as established in Heck v. Humphrey. Because the plaintiff's claims impermissibly sought to vacate his state criminal judgment, the claims failed as a matter of law. The denial of leave to amend was appropriate because the legal deficiency (using the wrong vehicle for the challenge) could not be cured by additional factual allegations, consistent with Carrico v. City & County of San Francisco. |
The order itself: sound — The order is legally sound. It correctly applies the statutory bar on in forma pauperis status for serial litigants under the PLRA and correctly applies the Heck doctrine to dismiss the § 1983 claims challenging a criminal conviction. The denial of leave to amend is justified by the futility of amending a claim that is legally barred from being brought in that form. The court cites the relevant binding authorities from the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 Case No.: 3:24-cv-00925-JO-KSC STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA 11 CDCR #J-48500, ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 12 ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY Plaintiff, FILING FEES REQUIRED BY 13 vs. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) AND FOR 14 FAILING TO STATE A FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT CLAIM PURSUANT TO 15 COURT, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) 16 Defendant. 17 18 Plaintiff Steve Wayne Bonilla, a prisoner at California Medical Facility in Vacaville, 19 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 serial litigant who makes no plausible allegations of imminent danger. See In re 1 || Steven Bonilla, 2012 WL 216401, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2012) (noting □□□□□□□□□□□ 2 || litigation history which includes dismissal of 34 actions between June | and October 31, 3 alone).! 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[.]” Heck v. 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 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that dismissal without leave to amend is appropriate if 14 || “amendment would be futile’) 15 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this complaint without leave to amend. The 16 Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close the file. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 20 21 Dated: August 19, 2024 Hon. Jinsook Ohta United States District Judge 23 24] | 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 26 ||Rachel Swan, ‘Method to his madness’: This man may be California’s most litigious person, SF. Chronicle, May 27, 2024, available at https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/vexatious-litigant- 27 |! death-row-19424807. php (last visited June 6, 2024).