1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case No.: 24cv2363-WQH (MSB) CDCR #J-48500, 12 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 13 ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY vs. FILING FEES REQUIRED BY 14

(a) AND AS CYNTHIA A. BASHANT, Judge, 15 FRIVOLOUS PURSUANT ROBERT S. HUIE, Judge, TODD W. TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2) 16 ROBINSON, Judge, ANDREW G. SCHOPLER, Judge, BERNARD G. 17 SKOMAL, Judge, MICHELLE M. 18 PETTIT, Judge, DAVID D. LESHNER, Judge, JAMES E. SIMMONS, Judge, 19 JINSOOK OHTA, Judge, and JOHN 20 DOES 1-1000, 21 Defendants. 22 23 HAYES, Judge: 24 Plaintiff Steven Wayne Bonilla, currently incarcerated at the California Medical 25 Facility in Vacaville, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint 26 (“Compl.”) pursuant to

seeking to invalidate his Alameda County 27 criminal judgment and sentence, along with a request for judicial notice which repeats the 1 allegations that his conviction is invalid. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) Bonilla has neither paid the 2 $405 civil filing fee nor submitted a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant 3 to

(a). Bonilla is a serial vexatious litigant, and he once again contends 4 that a judge of this Court has erred by failing to invalidate his Alameda County criminal 5 judgment and sentence in Case No. C-02-0636 MHP.1 (See ECF No. 1 at 2–3.) 6 I. Failure to Pay Filing Fee or Request IFP Status 7 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 8 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 9 $405, consisting of a $350 statutory fee plus an additional administrative fee of $55, 10 although the administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed IFP. 11 See

(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee 12 Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023)). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 13 prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 14 § 1915(a). Andrews v. Cervantes,

(9th Cir. 2007). 15 While “the previous version of the IFP statute granted courts the authority to waive 16 fees for any person ‘unable to pay[,]’ ... the PLRA [Prison Litigation Reform Act] amended 17 18 1 In 2024 alone, Bonilla filed over a dozen civil rights cases in this Court attacking the validity of his 1995 conviction and was told repeatedly, as he is again below, that presenting such claims in this Court in a 19 civil rights action is frivolous. See, e.g., Bonilla v. Meza et al., So.Dist.Cal. Civil Case No. 24cv0186- 20 WQH (BGS) (Order filed 3/18/24 [ECF No. 8]); Bonilla v. Schopler et al., So.Dist.Cal. Civil Case No. 24cv0205-JAH (DDL) (Order filed 2/26/24 [ECF No. 2]); Bonilla v. McConnell et al., So.Dist.Cal. Civil 21 Case No. 24cv0208-WQH (MMP) (Order filed 3/18/24 [ECF No. 6]); Bonilla v. People of the State of California, So.Dist.Cal. Civil Case No. 24cv681-JES (KSC) (Order filed 4/19/24 [ECF No. 2]); Bonilla 22 v. Fourth App. Dist. Ct., So.Dist.Cal. Civil Case No. 24cv0925-JO (KSC) (Order filed 8/19/24 [ECF No. 2]); Bonilla v. San Diego Cnty. Superior Ct. et al., So.Dist.Cal. Civil Case No. 24cv1002-WQH (LR) 23 (Order filed 6/24/24 [ECF No. 2]); Bonilla v. Hayes et al., So.Dist.Cal. Civil Case No. 24cv1003-BTM 24 (VET) (Order filed 6/24/24 [ECF No. 3]); Bonilla v. Schopler et al., So.Dist.Cal. Civil Case No. 24cv1036- MMA (LR) (Order filed 7/15/24 [ECF No. 2]); Bonilla v. Meza et al., So.Dist.Cal. Civil Case No. 25 24cv1931-RBM (KSC) (Order filed 10/25/24 [ECF No. 3]); Bonilla v. Ohta et al., So.Dist.Cal. Civil Case No. 24cv1941-DMS (DDL) (Order filed 12/6/24 [ECF No. 6]); Bonilla v. Simmons et al., So.Dist.Cal. 26 Civil Case No. 24cv1944-TWR (BLM) (Order filed 10/29/24 [ECF No. 3]); Bonilla v. Sammartino et al., So.Dist.Cal. Civil Case No. 24cv1961-WQH (KSC) (Order filed 11/22/24 [ECF No. 5]); Bonilla v. U.S. 27 Dist. Ct. et al., So.Dist.Cal. Civil Case No. 24cv1982-WQH (DDL) (Order filed 11/14/24 [ECF No. 8]). 1 the IFP statute to include a carve-out for prisoners: under the current version of the IFP 2 statute, ‘if a prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma pauperis, the prisoner 3 shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee.’” Hymas v. U.S. Dep’t of the 4 Interior,

, 767 (9th Cir. 2023) (quoting

(b)(1)). To proceed 5 IFP, prisoners must submit an affidavit of all assets they possess and a certified copy of a 6 trust fund account statement or institutional equivalent for the 6-month period immediately 7 preceding the filing of the complaint.

(a)(1)–(2). Using this financial 8 information, the court “shall assess and when funds exist, collect,” an initial partial filing 9 fee based on the average monthly deposits to the prisoner’s account or the average monthly 10 balance in the prisoner’s account over the 6-month term, with the remainder of the fee to 11 be paid in monthly payments.

(b)(1)–(2). Plaintiff has failed to submit 12 an IFP motion or any of the required financial information. 13 While the Court would typically grant a prisoner leave to file an IFP motion, Bonilla 14 has abused that privilege many times in the past and is precluded from doing so now unless 15 he faced “imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time of filing. 28 U.S.C. 16 § 1915(g); Harris v. Mangum,

(9th Cir. 2017) (“A negative 17 consequence that may impact a prisoner who files a frivolous complaint is a restriction on 18 his ability to file future cases without prepaying filing fees.”) Pursuant to § 1915(g), a 19 prisoner with three “strikes,” i.e., prior civil cases or appeals dismissed as frivolous, 20 malicious, or for failing to state a claim, cannot proceed IFP absent a showing of imminent 21 danger. Andrews v. King,

, 1116 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005). Bonilla is one of those 22 prisoners who makes no plausible allegations of imminent danger. See In re Steven 23 Bonilla,

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2012) (noting Plaintiff’s litigation 24 history in the Northern District of California, including the dismissal of 34 pro se § 1983 25 civil rights actions between June 1 and October 31, 2011, alone, which were dismissed 26 “because the allegations in the complaints do not state a claim for relief under § 1983”); 27 id. at *3 n.1 (“The Court recently informed Plaintiff that, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1 § 1915(g), he no longer qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil rights action.”). 2 II. Initial Screening per 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) 3 Even if Bonilla paid the full filing fee or were eligible to proceed IFP, 28 U.S.C. 4 § 1915A, also enacted as part of the PLRA, requires sua sponte dismissal of prisoner 5 complaints, or any portions of them, which are frivolous, malicious or fail to state a claim 6 upon which relief may be granted, and those that seek monetary relief from a defendant 7 who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2); Coleman v. Tollefson, 575

, 538–39 (2015). “The purpose of § 1915A is to ensure that the targets of frivolous 9 or malicious suits need not bear the expense of responding.” Nordstrom v. Ryan,

, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). 11 Bonilla’s challenge to the validity of his conviction and sentence fails to state a claim 12 in this action because a habeas corpus action is his sole federal remedy, and a lawsuit under 13

is inappropriate. See Preiser v. Rodriguez,

(1973) 14 (“Release from penal custody is not an available remedy under the Civil Rights Act”);

15 Nettles v. Grounds,

(9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (“[H]abeas corpus is the 16 exclusive remedy to attack the legality of [a] conviction or sentence ....”); see also 17 Hamilton v. Brown,

, 892 n.1 (9th Cir. 2011) (“At the screening stage, the 18 court must dismiss the complaint or any portion thereof that is “frivolous, malicious, or 19 fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a 20 defendant who is immune from such relief.”) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)); Lopez v.

F.3d 1122, 1127 n.8 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (if an action is frivolous, “there 22 is by definition no merit to the underlying action and so no reason to grant leave to 23 amend.”). As noted above, Plaintiff has had these same claims dismissed as frivolous over 24 a dozen times this year alone. A district court may dismiss as frivolous a complaint “that 25 merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims.” Cato v. United States,

1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995). 27 1 Conclusion and Order 2 The Court: (1) DISMISSES this civil action based on Plaintiff's failure to pay the 3 || $405 civil filing and administrative fee required by

(a); (2) DISMISSES 4 ||PlaintifPfs Complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)H2); and 5 ||(3) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to close the case and accept no further filings in this 6 || matter except a timely-filed Notice of Appeal, which the Court CERTIFIES would not be 7 ||taken in good faith pursuant to

(a)(3). 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: January 8, 2025 BE: Liber A. A laws - 10 Hon, William Q. Hayes 1 United States District Court 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27