1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case No.: 3:24-cv-00681-JES-KSC CDCR #J-48500, 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Plaintiff, 13 VACATE vs. 14 [ECF No. 6] PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 15 CALIFORNIA, 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 Plaintiff Steven Wayne Bonilla, currently incarcerated at California Medical 20 Facility in Vacaville, California, and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint in 21 this Court pursuant to

, on April 12, 2024 (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff is a 22 vexatious serial litigant,1 who continually seeks to have his Alameda County criminal 23 judgment and death sentence declared “void.” (See

.) Plaintiff claims he was 24

25 26 1 In fact, Plaintiff 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 27 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-litigant-death-row-19424807 28 1 arrested without probable cause and remains falsely imprisoned as the result of a 2 malicious prosecution. (Id. at 3.) 3 On April 19, 2024, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s case because he failed to pay the 4 $405 filing fee required by

(a) and because his complaint failed to state 5 a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). (See ECF No. 2.) The Court noted that 6 while it would ordinarily grant a pro se litigant leave to both file a motion to proceed in 7 forma pauperis (“IFP”) and to amend his pleading, Plaintiff is barred from proceeding 8 IFP due to his vexatiousness pursuant to

(g), and his repeated efforts to 9 invalidate his criminal conviction via the Civil Rights Act are futile. (Id. at 3‒5.) 10 Therefore, the Court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the action and close the file. 11 (Id. at 5.) 12 On June 11, 2024, however, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Vacate a Void Judgment” 13 (ECF No. 6). In it, Plaintiff simply repeats the same allegations raised in his complaint. 14 He contends he is the victim of a malicious prosecution, and a host of judges have 15 conspired with prosecutors to falsely imprison him; therefore, this Court’s April 19, 2024 16 Order of dismissal must be set aside, and his Alameda County Superior Court conviction 17 declared void. (Id. at 2‒5.) 18 I. MOTION TO VACATE 19 A. Standard of Review 20 A motion to alter or amend a judgment is construed under Rule 59(e) if it is filed 21 within 28 days of entry of judgment; otherwise, it is considered under Rule 60(b) as a 22 motion for relief from a judgment or order. See Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. 23 Constr. Corp.,

, 898‒99 (9th Cir. 2001). Because Plaintiff’s Motion was 24 filed more than 28 days after the entry of the April 19, 2024 Order dismissing this action, 25 the Court will consider it as brought pursuant to Rule 60(b). Id. 26 “Rule 60(b) allows for relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for any of 27 six reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly 28 discovered evidence that could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial; 1 (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment 2 has been satisfied; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Trendsettah USA, Inc. v. 3 Swisher Int’l, Inc.,

, 1136 (9th Cir. 2022) (citing Hanson v. Shubert, 968

, 1017 n.1 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). The 5 moving party “bears the burden of proving the existence of a justification for Rule 60(b) 6 relief.” Cassidy v. Tenorio,

(9th Cir. 1988); United States v. 7 Westlands Water Dist.,

, 1130–31 (E.D. Cal. 2001). That party must 8 show “more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision[;] recapitulation of the cases 9 and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original decision fails to carry 10 the moving party’s burden.” Westlands Water,

(cleaned up). 11 B. Discussion 12 Plaintiff does not specify whether he seeks to set aside the Court’s April 19, 2024 13 Order of dismissal pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), or (6). Instead, he repeats 14 claims that because his criminal conviction was the result of collusion between the FBI 15 and the State, it must be “pronounced a nullity.” (ECF No. 6 at 2.) Therefore, the Court 16 liberally construes Plaintiff’s motion to seek relief either pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4), based 17 on claims that its Order of dismissal is “void,” see United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. 18 Espinosa,

(2010), or pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) based on the Court’s 19 “mistake[s].” See Kemp v. United States,

, 533‒34 (2022). 20 “As a matter of text, structure, and history, . . . a ‘mistake’ under Rule 60(b)(1) 21 includes a judge’s errors of law.” Id.; United States v. Ehmer,

, 1091 (9th 22 Cir. 2023); see also Bailey v. Santa Clara Cty. Superior Ct., No. 21-CV-00279-HSG, 23

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2021) (construing Plaintiff’s claims that the 24 Court erred in dismissing his action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)). Rule 60(b)(1) 25 allows this Court to relieve a party from an Order based on “mistake, inadvertence, 26 surprise, or excusable neglect.” Such mistakes include the Court’s substantive errors of 27 law or fact. Fid. Fed. Bank, FSB v. Durga Ma Corp.,

(9th Cir. 28 2004). 1 Rule 60(b)(4), on the other hand, “applies only in the rare instance where a 2 judgment is premised either on a certain type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of 3 due process that deprives a party of notice or opportunity to be heard.” United Student 4 Aid Funds,

; see also United States v. Berke,

(9th Cir. 5 1999) (recognizing that a “final judgment is ‘void’ for purposes of Rule 60(b)(4) only if 6 the court that considered it lacked jurisdiction, either as to the subject matter of the 7 dispute or over the parties to be bound, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due 8 process of law.”). In considering allegations of a jurisdictional defect, the generally 9 accepted standard is that relief under Rule 60(b)(4) should be reserved “only for the 10 exceptional case in which the court that rendered the judgment lacked even an arguable 11 basis for jurisdiction.” United Student Aid Funds,

. As discussed below, 12 Plaintiff fails to show either that the Court’s April 19, 2024 Order of dismissal is void, or 13 that the Court committed any mistake in dismissing his complaint. 14 First, Plaintiff does not allege and cannot show this Court lacked subject matter 15 jurisdiction over his complaint, which was filed pursuant to

. (See ECF 16 No. 1 at 1.) Section 1343(a)(3) of Title 28 of the United States Code provides that district 17 courts have original jurisdiction over “any civil action authorized by law . . . [t]o redress 18 the deprivation, under color of any State law . . . of any right, privilege or immunity 19 secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for 20 equal rights of citizens . . . within the jurisdiction of the United States[.]” 28

(a)(3). Courts have described this paragraph as the “jurisdictional 22 counterpart to § 1983[.]” Golden State Transit Corp. v. City of Los Angeles,

103, 107 n.4 (1989); Tongol v. Usery,

(9th Cir. 1979). Therefore, to 24 the extent Plaintiff seeks to set aside this Court’s dismissal Order as void pursuant to 25 Rule 60(b)(4), his motion lacks merit. 26 Second, in order to obtain relief under Rule 60(b)(1), Plaintiff “must show that the 27 district court committed a specific error.” Straw v. Bowen,

(9th Cir. 28 1989). It does not provide him with a “new opportunity to present legal argument or 1 || evidence that could have been presented in response to the underlying dispositive 2 ||motion.” Wallace v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc., No. C20-799RSM,

, 3 || at *2 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 3, 2021). Nor may a Rule 60(b)(1) motion be used to ask a court 4 rethink what the court ha[s] already thought through—trightly or wrongly.” 5 || Schertzer v. Bank of America, N.A, No. 19-CV-264 JM (MSB),

, at *1 6 ||(S.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2021) (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 7 || F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). Plaintiff's motion merely repeats the same claims as his 8 || original complaint. While he continues to insist his underlying criminal conviction is 9 ||invalid, he points to no substantive error of law or fact in the Court’s April 19, 2024 10 || Order of dismissal. See Kemp, 536 U.S. at 534 (for Rule 60(b)(1) purposes, a “mistake” 11 |/includes a “fault in opinion or judgment”). In fact, Plaintiff fails to address any of the 12 || Court’s conclusions—that he failed to pay filing fees and is barred from proceeding IFP 13 || pursuant to

(g), or that habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy to attack 14 || the validity of his conviction. (See ECF No. 2 at 3-5.) For these reasons, to the extent 15 || Plaintiff seeks to set aside this Court’s April 19, 2024 Order of dismissal pursuant to Rule 16 || 60(b)(1), relief is also not warranted. 17 CONCLUSION 18 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate a Void Judgment 19 || [ECF No. 6], DIRECTS the Clerk to again close the file, and to accept no further 20 documents for filing in this closed case, except for a timely-filed Notice of Appeal, which 21 Court CERTIFIES would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 22 |1§ 1915(a)(3). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 35 Dated: June 17, 2024 Ol ee SS smmeo 4, 26 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr 07 United States District Judge 28 5 oe