1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA Case No.: 24-cv-1934-AJB-MMP CDCR #J-48500, 12 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 13 ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY vs. FILING FEES REQUIRED BY 14

(a) AND AS KELLY J. SIMMONS, et al., 15 FRIVOLOUS PURSUANT Defendants. TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Steven Wayne Bonilla, currently incarcerated at the California Medical 19 Facility in Vacaville, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint 20 (“Compl.”) pursuant to

. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff is a serial litigant, and in 21 this action he complains that his Alameda County criminal judgment and death sentence 22 was procured unlawfully. (See Compl. at 2–18.) Bonilla has neither paid the $405 civil 23 filing fee nor submitted a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28

(a). 25 I. Failure to Pay Filing Fee or Request IFP Status 26 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 27 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 1 $405, consisting of a $350 statutory fee plus an additional administrative fee of $55, 2 although the administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed IFP. 3 See

(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee 4 Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023)). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 5 prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 6 § 1915(a). Andrews v. Cervantes,

(9th Cir. 2007). 7 While “the previous version of the IFP statute granted courts the authority to waive 8 fees for any person ‘unable to pay[,]’ . . . the PLRA [Prison Litigation Reform Act] 9 amended the IFP statute to include a carve-out for prisoners: under the current version of 10 the IFP statute, ‘if a prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma pauperis, the 11 prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee.’” Hymas v. U.S. Dep’t of 12 the Interior,

(9th Cir. 2023), quoting

(b)(1). To proceed 13 IFP, prisoners must submit an affidavit of all assets they possess and a certified copy of a 14 trust fund account statement or institutional equivalent for the 6-month period immediately 15 preceding the filing of the complaint.

(a)(1)–(2). Using this financial 16 information, the court “shall assess and when funds exist, collect,” an initial partial filing 17 fee based on the average monthly deposits to the prisoner’s account or the average monthly 18 balance in the prisoner’s account over the 6-month term, with the remainder of the fee to 19 be paid in monthly payments.

(b)(1)–(2). Plaintiff has failed to submit 20 an IFP motion or any of the required financial information. 21 While the Court would typically grant a prisoner leave to file an IFP motion, Bonilla 22 has abused that privilege many times in the past and is precluded from doing so now unless 23 he faced “imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time of filing. 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915(g); Harris v. Mangum,

(9th Cir. 2017) (“A negative 25 consequence that may impact a prisoner who files a frivolous complaint is a restriction on 26 his ability to file future cases without prepaying filing fees.”). Pursuant to § 1915(g), a 27 prisoner with three “strikes,” i.e., prior civil cases or appeals dismissed as frivolous, 1 malicious, or for failing to state a claim, cannot proceed IFP absent a showing of imminent 2 danger. Andrews v. King,

, 1116 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005). Bonilla is one of those 3 prisoners. See In re Steven Bonilla, Nos. C 11–6306 CW (PR), C 11–6307 CW (PR), C

4 12–0026 CW (PR), C 12–0027 CW (PR), C 12–0206 CW (PR),

, at *1 5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2012) (noting Plaintiff’s litigation history in the Northern District of 6 California, including the dismissal of 34 pro se § 1983 civil rights actions between June 1 7 and October 31, 2011, alone, which were dismissed “because the allegations in the 8 complaints do not state a claim for relief under § 1983.”); id. at *3 n.1 (“The Court recently 9 informed Plaintiff that, in accordance with

(g), he no longer qualifies to 10 proceed in forma pauperis in any civil rights action.”). Bonilla makes no plausible 11 allegation of imminent danger here, as he merely claims his arrest warrant was based on a 12 false affidavit resulting in a void criminal judgment. (ECF No. 1 at 2–18.) 13 II. Initial Screening per 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) 14 Even if Bonilla paid the full filing fee or is eligible to proceed IFP, 28 U.S.C. 15 § 1915A, also enacted as part of the PLRA, requires sua sponte dismissal of prisoner 16 complaints like his, or any portions of them, which are frivolous, malicious or fail to state 17 a claim upon which relief may be granted, and those that seek monetary relief from a 18 defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2); Coleman v. 19 Tollefson,

, 538–39 (2015). “The purpose of § 1915A is to ensure that the 20 targets of frivolous or malicious suits need not bear the expense of responding.” Nordstrom 21 v. Ryan,

, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quote marks omitted). 22 Bonilla’s challenge to the validity of his conviction and sentence fails to state a claim 23 in this action because a habeas corpus action is his sole federal remedy, and a lawsuit under 24

is inappropriate. See Preiser v. Rodriguez,

(1973) 25 (“Release from penal custody is not an available remedy under the Civil Rights Act”);

26 Nettles v. Grounds,

(9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (“[H]abeas corpus is the 27 exclusive remedy to attack the legality of [a] conviction or sentence . . . .”). 1 Conclusion and Order 2 The Court: 3 (1) DISMISSES this civil action based on Plaintiffs failure to pay the $405 civil 4 || filing and administrative fee required by

(a); 5 (2) DISMISSES Plaintiffs Complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 6 |1§ 191S5A(b)(1)H2); 7 (3) CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal in this case would not be taken in good faith 8 || pursuant to

(a)(3); and 9 (4) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to close the file. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: October 29, 2024 | ZS : Le 13 Hon. Anthony J.@Battaglia 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27