1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 Steven Wayne BONILLA, Case No. 24-cv-2374-AGS-SBC

5 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 6 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF 8), DISMISSING COMPLAINT, 7 DENYING MOTION FOR IMPERIAL COUNTY SUPERIOR 8 EXPEDITED REVIEW (ECF 9) AS COURT JUDGES AND CLERKS, et al., MOOT, AND CLOSING CASE 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 Parties instituting most civil actions in federal court must prepay $405 in fees, 16 including a $350 filing fee and a $55 administrative fee. See

(a); Judicial 17 Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023). 18 But if the Court grants leave to proceed in forma pauperis, a party may initiate a civil action 19 without prepaying the required fees. See

(a); Andrews v. Cervantes, 20

(9th Cir. 2007). Prisoners like Bonilla, however, “face an additional 21 hurdle.” Moore v. Maricopa Cty. Sheriff’s Office,

(9th Cir. 2011). To 22 further “the congressional goal of reducing frivolous prisoner litigation in federal court,” 23 prisoners cannot proceed IFP once they “have, while incarcerated, on 3 or more prior 24 occasions had claims dismissed due to their frivolity, maliciousness, or failure to state a 25 claim.” Tierney v. Kupers,

(9th Cir. 1997) (cleaned up); see also 26

(g) (“In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action under this [IFP] 27 section . . . if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained 28 in any facility, brought an action . . . that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, 1 malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is 2 under imminent danger of serious physical injury.”). 3 When courts review a dismissal to determine whether it counts as one of these three 4 strikes, “the style of the dismissal or the procedural posture is immaterial” because “the 5 central question is whether the dismissal rang the PLRA [Prison Litigation Reform Act] 6 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 8 the district court styles such dismissal as a denial of the prisoner’s application to file the 9 action without prepayment of the full filing fee.” O’Neal v. Price,

, 1153 10 (9th Cir. 2008). Defendants typically carry the initial burden to produce evidence 11 demonstrating a prisoner is not entitled to proceed IFP for having three strikes, but “in 12 some instances, the district court docket may be sufficient to show that a prior dismissal 13 satisfies at least one of the criteria under § 1915(g) and therefore counts as a strike.” 14 Andrews v. King,

(9th Cir. 2005). 15 Bonilla, while incarcerated, has had dozens of prior prisoner civil actions dismissed 16 on the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which 17 relief may be granted, rendering him ineligible to proceed IFP. See United States v. Wilson, 18

(9th Cir. 1980) (holding that “a court may take judicial notice of its own 19 records in other cases, as well as the records of [different courts] in other cases”); see also 20 Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2) (“The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to 21 reasonable dispute because it can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose 22 accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”). Indeed, in dismissing five civil actions for 23 failing to state a claim, a previous court already informed Bonilla that under “28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915(g), he no longer qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil rights action.” 25 In re Bonilla, Nos. C 11–6306 CW (PR), C 11–6307 CW (PR), C 12–0026 CW (PR), C 12– 26 0027 CW (PR), C 12–0206 CW (PR),

, at *3, n.1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 27 2012); see

(noting Bonilla’s litigation history, including 34 pro se civil rights 28 actions in the Northern District of California alone, which were dismissed “because the 1 allegations in the complaints [did] not state a claim for relief under § 1983”). 2 Nor does Bonilla meet the “imminent danger of serious physical injury” exception 3 |}under

(g). Imminent danger requires an allegation that a harm is “ready 4 || to take place” or “hanging threateningly over one’s head.” Andrews v. Cervantes,

|| 1047, 1056 (9th Cir. 2007) (cleaned up). It “cannot be triggered solely by complaints of 6 injury or generalized fears of possible future harm.” Hernandez v. Williams, No. 7 ||21cv347-MMA-KSC,

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2021) (cleaned up). 8 || Bonilla seeks to “compel the clerk’s office to file” documents he wants filed, and to “hold 9 || the clerk’s office and its employees liable” for failing to do so. (ECF 1, at 3.) Nothing in 10 || his complaint satisfies the imminent-danger exception. 11 CONCLUSION 12 Thus, Bonilla’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as barred by 28 13 ||U.S.C. § 1915(g). The action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to pay 14 |/the statutory and administrative $402 civil filing fee required by

(a). 15 ||Bonilla’s motion for expedited review is DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is 16 || directed to close this case. The Court also “certifies in writing” that an in forma pauperis 17 ||appeal of this Order would be frivolous and “not taken in good faith.”

|] 1915(a)(3). 19 || Dated: April 1, 2025 20 Z | f. 1 Andre Schopler United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 oe ee