Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00332/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00332-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

3:19-cv-00332-MMA-MSB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA 

CDCR #J-48500, 

Plaintiff,

vs. 

JUDGE ANTHONY J. BATTAGLIA, et 

al., 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 3:19-cv-00332-MMA-MSB 

ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 

ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY 

FILING FEES REQUIRED BY 

28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) 

Plaintiff Steven Wayne Bonilla, currently incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison 

(“SQ”) located in San Quentin, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil action. 

See Doc. No. 1. 

I. Failure to Pay Filing Fee or Request IFP Status

 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 

United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 

$400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 

prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. 

Case 3:19-cv-00332-MMA-MSB Document 2 Filed 02/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

3:19-cv-00332-MMA-MSB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s 

(“PLRA”) amendments to § 1915 require that every prisoner who is granted leave to 

proceed IFP must pay the entire fee in “increments” or “installments,” Bruce v. Samuels, 

__ U.S. __, 136 S. Ct. 627, 629 (2016); Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th 

Cir. 2015), and regardless of whether their action is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Section 1915(a)(2) requires all persons seeking to proceed without full prepayment 

of fees to submit an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets possessed and 

demonstrates an inability to pay. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th 

Cir. 2015). In support of this affidavit, prisoners must also submit a “certified copy of 

the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for ... the 6-month period 

immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); Andrews v. 

King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). From the certified trust account statement, 

the Court assesses an initial payment of 20% of (a) the average monthly deposits in the 

account for the past six months, or (b) the average monthly balance in the account for the 

past six months, whichever is greater, unless the prisoner has no assets. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The institution having custody of the prisoner then 

collects subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the preceding month’s income, in any 

month in which his account exceeds $10, and forwards those payments to the Court until 

the entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2); Bruce, 136 S. Ct. at 629. 

Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee required to commence a civil action, nor has he 

filed a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). For this 

procedural reason alone, his case cannot proceed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Andrews, 493 

F.3d at 1051. And while the Court would typically grant him leave to file an IFP Motion, 

Plaintiff has abused that privilege and is precluded from doing so by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 

unless he claims to face “imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time of 

filing. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting 

Case 3:19-cv-00332-MMA-MSB Document 2 Filed 02/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

3:19-cv-00332-MMA-MSB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

§ 1915(g)’s exception for IFP complaints which “make[] a plausible allegation that the 

prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing.”). He 

makes no such allegations here. See In re Steven Bonilla, 2012 WL 216401, at *1 (N.D. 

Cal. Jan. 24, 2012) (noting Plaintiff’s litigation history in the Northern District of 

California, including the dismissal of 34 pro se civil rights actions between June 1 and 

October 31, 2011 alone, which were dismissed “because the allegations in [his] 

complaints d[id] not state a claim for relief under § 1983.”); id. at *3 n.1 (“The Court 

recently informed Plaintiff that, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he no longer 

qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil rights action.” (citing In re Steven 

Bonilla, Nos. C 11-3180, et seq. CW (PR), Order of Dismissal at 6:23-7:19.)).1

III. Conclusion and Order 

For the reasons explained, the Court DISMISSES this civil action based on 

Plaintiff’s failure to pay the $400 civil filing and administrative fee required by 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1914(a), and CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal in this case would not be taken in good 

faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to 

enter judgment accordingly and close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: February 20, 2019 _______________________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

 United States District Judge 

                                                                

1

 In fact, the Court takes judicial notice that over the course of the last 18 years, Plaintiff has filed more 

than 1,100 separate civil rights actions and habeas corpus petitions, several recently in the Southern 

District of California, but the vast majority of which in the Northern District of California, where 

Alameda County is situated, where he was convicted by a jury of first degree murder with special 

circumstances and sentenced to death in 1992, and where he remains incarcerated. See People v. 

Bonilla, 41 Cal. 4th 313 (2007); 

https://pcl.uscourts.gov/pcl/pages/search/results/parties.jsf?sid=42b7617aedac4330bbf2ca0daeeafeb0

(last visited Feb. 20, 2019); Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (Courts “may take 

notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those 

proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.”) (internal citation and quotations omitted). 

Case 3:19-cv-00332-MMA-MSB Document 2 Filed 02/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3