1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 Steven Wayne BONILLA, Case No. 23-cv-1276-AGS-BGS

5 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 6 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF 2) AND DISMISSING THE 7 COMPLAIT IN ITS ENTIRETY IMPERIAL COUNTY SUPERIOR 8 COURT JUDGES AND CLERKS, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Steven Wayne Bonilla, an inmate suing defendants for civil-rights violations under 12

, moves to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons below, that motion 13 is denied and the complaint is dismissed without prejudice. 14 DISCUSSION 15 Typically, parties instituting a civil action in a United States district court must pay 16 filing fees of $402.1 See

(a). But if granted the right to proceed in forma 17 pauperis, a plaintiff need not pay those fees. Rodriguez v. Cook,

(9th 18 Cir. 1999). Prisoners like Bonilla, however, “face an additional hurdle.” Moore v. 19 Maricopa Cty. Sheriff’s Office,

(9th Cir. 2011). To further “the 20 congressional goal of reducing frivolous prisoner litigation in federal court,” prisoners 21 cannot proceed IFP once they “have, while incarcerated, on 3 or more prior occasions had 22 claims dismissed due to their frivolity, maliciousness, or failure to state a claim.” Tierney 23 v. Kupers,

(9th Cir. 1997) (cleaned up); see also

(g) 24 25 26 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay a $52 administrative 27 fee. See

(a); District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (effective Dec. 1, 2020). 28 1 (“In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action under this [IFP] section . . . if the prisoner 2 has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought 3 an action . . . that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to 4 state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent 5 danger of serious physical injury.”). 6 When courts review a dismissal to determine whether it counts as one of these three 7 strikes, “the style of the dismissal or the procedural posture is immaterial” because “the 8 central question is whether the dismissal rang the PLRA [Prison Litigation Reform Act] 9 bells of frivolous, malicious, or failure to state a claim.” El-Shaddai v. Zamora,

(9th Cir. 2016) (cleaned up). Prior cases are considered strikes, then, “even if 11 the district court styles such dismissal as a denial of the prisoner’s application to file the 12 action without prepayment of the full filing fee.” O’Neal v. Price,

, 1153 13 (9th Cir. 2008). Defendants typically carry the initial burden to produce evidence 14 demonstrating a prisoner is not entitled to proceed IFP for having three strikes, but “in 15 some instances, the district court docket may be sufficient to show that a prior dismissal 16 satisfies at least one of the criteria under § 1915(g) and therefore counts as a strike.” 17 Andrews v. King,

(9th Cir. 2005). 18 Bonilla, while incarcerated, has had dozens of prior prisoner civil actions dismissed 19 on the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which 20 relief may be granted, rendering him ineligible to proceed IFP. See United States v. Wilson, 21

(9th Cir. 1980) (holding that “a court may take judicial notice of its own 22 records in other cases, as well as the records of [different courts] in other cases”); see also 23 Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2) (“The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to 24 reasonable dispute because it can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose 25 accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”). Indeed, in dismissing five civil actions for 26 failing to state a claim, a previous court already informed Bonilla that under “28 U.S.C. 27 § 1915(g), he no longer qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil rights action.” 28 In re Bonilla, Nos. C 11–6306 CW (PR), C 11–6307 CW (PR), C 12–0026 CW (PR), C 1 12-0027 CW (PR), C 12-0206 CW (PR),

, at *3, n.1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2 ||2012); see

(noting Bonilla’s litigation history, including 34 pro se civil rights 3 ||actions in the Northern District of California alone, which were dismissed “because the 4 || allegations in the complaints [did] not state a claim for relief under § 1983”). 5 Nor does Bonilla meet the “imminent danger of serious physical injury” exception 6 ||under

(g). Imminent danger requires an allegation that a harm is “ready 7 take place” or “hanging threateningly over one’s head.” Andrews v. Cervantes,

(9th Cir. 2007) (cleaned up). It “cannot be triggered solely by complaints of 9 ||past injury or generalized fears of possible future harm.” Hernandez v. Williams, No. 10 ||21cv347-MMA-KSC,

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2021) (cleaned up). 11 || Bonilla alleges he has been subjected to malicious prosecution for which he seeks to hold 12 liable the clerks and judges of the Imperial County Superior Court. (ECF 1, at 1-2.) 13 || Nothing in his complaint satisfies the imminent-danger exception. 14 CONCLUSION 15 Thus, Bonilla’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 2) is DENIED as barred 16 || by

(g). The action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure 17 ||to pay the statutory and administrative $402 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. 18 1914(a). The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. The Court also “certifies in 19 || writing” that an in forma pauperis appeal of this Order would be frivolous and “not taken 20 good faith.”

(a)(3). 21 ||Dated: July 13, 2023 22 Z | f. 3 Andrew G. Schopler United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 3 oe ee