Bonilla v. Judges
- 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. The court dismissed the action for failure to pay filing fees and for failing to state a claim, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the complaint for failure to pay filing fees and preclusion from proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP).“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 IFP unless they are in imminent danger of serious physical injury. The order recites that Bonilla has a history of 34 dismissed actions, satisfying the 'three strikes' requirement, and notes he makes no allegations of imminent danger. This follows the law and the recited record. |
Dismissal of the complaint for failing to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.“The Court dismisses this complaint without leave to amend because additional allegations could not cure this legal deficiency.” | 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 are impermissible collateral attacks on his conviction, the legal deficiency cannot be cured by amendment. The dismissal without leave to amend is appropriate under Carrico v. City & County of San Francisco. |
Certification that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.“The Court CERTIFIES would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).” | agree with court The court has the authority to certify that an appeal is not taken in good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Given the plaintiff's status as a serial litigant with a history of frivolous filings and the clear legal bar to his claims, this certification is supported by the record. |
The order itself: sound — The order is legally sound. It correctly applies the PLRA's three-strikes rule to bar IFP status and correctly applies Heck v. Humphrey to dismiss the § 1983 claims as impermissible collateral attacks on a criminal conviction. The dismissal without leave to amend is justified by the futility of amendment. The certification of bad faith appeal is supported by the plaintiff's serial litigant status.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 Case No.: 3:24-cv-02355-JO-KSC STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA 11 CDCR #J-48500, ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 12 ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY Plaintiff, FILING FEES REQUIRED BY 28 13 vs. U.S.C. § 1914(a) AND FOR FAILING 14 TO STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT JUDGE AMALIA L. MEZA, et al., TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) 15 Defendants. 16 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 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 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: January 16, 2025 21 22 — Ho forgbfe Tinsook Ohta 23 United States District Judge 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 Jan. 8, 2025).