Bonilla v. Ohta

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case No.: 24-cv-1941-DMS-DDL CDCR #J-48500, [12] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Plaintiff, 13 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS vs. AS BARRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (g) [14] AND DISMISSING CIVIL 15 ACTION WITHOUT LEAVE JUDGE JINSOOK OHTA; TO AMEND PURSUANT 16 JUDGE KAREN S. CRAWFORD, TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2) 17 Defendants. [ECF No. 2] [19] 20 Plaintiff Steve Wayne Bonilla, currently incarcerated at the California Medical 21 Facility in Vacaville, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint 22 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . See ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”). Plaintiff is a serial vexatious 23 litigant, and he again contends that judges of this Court have erred by failing to invalidate 24 his Alameda County criminal judgment and sentence in Case No. C-02-0636 MHP. Id. at 25 2‒3.1 Bonilla contends Defendants conspired and “refuse[d] to perform their duty to [27] 1 In fact, Bonilla has filed so many cases attacking the validity of his 1995 conviction, the [28] 1 enforce the law” by failing to declare his conviction void and by refusing to release him 2 from “false imprisonment.” Id. Bonilla has not paid the $405 civil filing fee, but instead 3 has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a) 4 (ECF No. 2).2 5 Because Bonilla is barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (g) from proceeding IFP, does not 6 allege imminent danger, and seeks damages from defendants who are absolutely immune, 7 the Court denies his motion and dismisses his complaint without leave to amend both for 8 failing to state a claim and as frivolous. 9 / / / [12] U.S. history.” See Rachel Swan, ‘Method to his madness’: This man may be California’s 13 most litigious person, S.F. Chronicle, May 27, 2024, available at https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/vexatious-litigant-death-row-19424807.php [14] (last visited Dec. 2, 2024). [15] 2 Bonilla has since filed additional documents entitled: (1) “Request for Judicial Notice” [16] (ECF No. 3), and (2) “Disqualification of Judges; Conflict of Interest” (ECF No. 4). The 17 first document repeats the claims of malicious prosecution Bonilla asserts in his complaint, and the second states simply that United States District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz and [18] United States Magistrate Judge David D. Leshner are disqualified due to an unidentified 19 conflict of interest. Judge Moskowitz, who was assigned to this case at filing, liberally construed the second document to be a motion for recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 [20] and 455 (ECF No. 4), and had the case reassigned. See ECF No. 5. However, Bonilla fails 21 to identify any factual basis for the recusal of either Judge Moskowitz or Judge Leshner and the standard is “‘whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would [22] conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’” Mayes v. 23 Leipziger, 729 F.2d 605, 607 (9th Cir. 1984) (quoting United States v. Nelson, 718 F.2d 315, 321 (9th Cir. 1983)); see also United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. [24] 1986). A judge’s previous adverse ruling alone is not sufficient for recusal. Nelson, 718 25 F.2d at 321. And while consideration of a motion for recusal must take all facts provided as true for the purpose of ruling on their legal sufficiency, the court need not accept [26] “conclusory allegations [that] are baseless and without any factual support.” United States 27 v. Bell, 79 F. Supp. 2d 1169, 1173 (E.D. Cal. 1999). Thus, because Bonilla offers no factual basis and cites no evidence of judicial bias or disqualification, this Court finds recusal is [28] 1 I. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 2 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 3 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 4 $405, consisting of a $350 statutory fee plus an additional administrative fee of $55, 5 although the administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed in forma 6 pauperis (“IFP”). See 28 U.S.C. § 1914 (a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District 7 Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023)). The action may proceed despite a 8 plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant 9 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a). See Hymas v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 73 F.4th 763, 765 (9th Cir. 10 2023), cert. denied sub nom. Hymas v. Dep’t of the Interior, 144 S. Ct. 2604 (2024). 11 “To help staunch a ‘flood of non-meritorious’ prisoner litigation, the Prison 12 Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) established what has become known as the three13 strikes rule.” Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, 140 S. Ct. 1721, 1723 (2020) (quoting Jones v. 14 Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 203 (2007)). “That rule generally prevents a prisoner from bringing 15 suit in forma pauperis (IFP)—that is, without first paying the filing fee—if he has had three 16 or more prior suits ‘dismissed on the grounds that [they were] frivolous, malicious, or 17 fail[ed] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.’” Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. 18 § 1915(g)); see also Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th 692, 697 (9th Cir. 2022). “A negative 19 consequence that may impact a prisoner who files a frivolous complaint is a restriction on 20 his ability to file future cases without prepaying filing fees.” Harris v. Mangum, 863, F.3d 21 1133, 1139 (9th Cir. 2017). Thus, under § 1915(g), a prisoner with three or more strikes 22 “cannot proceed IFP” absent plausible allegations of ongoing or “imminent danger of 23 serious physical injury” at the time of filing. Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047 , 1055 24 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting U.S.C. § 1915(g)). That danger must also “stem[] from the 25 violations of law alleged in [the] complaint.” Ray, 31 F.4th at 701 . 26 Bonilla has a long history of strikes, and he makes no plausible allegations of 27 imminent danger at the time he filed his complaint. See Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055 ; In re 28 Steven Bonilla, 2012 WL 216401 , at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2012) (noting Bonilla’s 1 litigation history in the Northern District of California, including the dismissal of 34 pro se 2 § 1983 civil rights actions between June 1 and October 31, 2011, alone, which were 3 dismissed “because the allegations in the complaints do not state a claim for relief under 4 § 1983.”); id. at *3 n.1 (“The Court recently informed Plaintiff that, in accordance with 28 5 U.S.C. § 1915 (g), he no longer qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil rights 6 action.”).Thus, because Bonilla has abused the privilege so often in the past and does not 7 qualify for an imminent danger exception, his motion to proceed IFP in this case [ECF No. 8 2] is denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (g). See Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221 , 1231 9 (9th Cir. 1984) (“[P]ermission to proceed in forma pauperis is itself a matter of privilege 10 and not right[.]”), abrogated on other grounds by Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989). 11 II. Initial Screening per 28 U.S.C. § 1915A 12 Moreover, even if Bonilla were to pay the full filing fee, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, also 13 enacted as part of the PLRA, requires sua sponte review and dismissal of prisoner 14 complaints like his, or any portions of them, which are frivolous, malicious or fail to state 15 a claim upon which relief may be granted, and those that seek monetary relief from a 16 governmental defendant who is immune. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b)(1)-(2); Coleman v. 17 Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532 , 538‒39 (2015). “The purpose of § 1915A is to ensure that the 18 targets of frivolous or malicious suits need not bear the expense of responding.” Nordstrom 19 v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903 , 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quote marks omitted). As noted 20 above, Bonilla seeks to vacate an Alameda County criminal judgment and to sue two 21 federal judges pursuant to § 1983 for failing to declare his long-standing conviction “void.” 22 See Compl. at 3. He may do neither. 23 First, to the extent Bonilla challenges the validity of his criminal case, and asks the 24 Court to “order his discharge from false imprisonment,” a habeas corpus action is his sole 25 federal remedy, and a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is inappropriate. See id.; Preiser v. 26 Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 479 (1973) (“Release from penal custody is not an available 27 remedy under the Civil Rights Act”); Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 933 (9th Cir. 2016) 28 (en banc) (“[H]abeas corpus is the exclusive remedy to attack the legality of [a] conviction 1 or sentence.”). For this reason alone, Bonilla’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which 2 § 1983 relief can be granted and is subject to sua sponte dismissal without leave to amend 3 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). See Washington v. Los Angeles Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, [4] 833 F.3d 1048, 1055 (9th Cir. 2016) (finding that a § 1983 complaint barred by Heck may 5 be dismissed for failure to state a claim when the pleading as a whole “present[s] an 6 ‘obvious bar to securing relief.’”). “[T]he PLRA expressly authorize[s] the district court to 7 dismiss [a] complaint [barred by Heck] for failure to state a claim at any time even when 8 … the legal basis for the dismissal [is raised] o[n] its own accord.” Hebrard v. Nofziger, [9] 90 F.4th 1000, 1006 (9th Cir. 2024). 10 Second, Bonilla seeks damages against United States District Judge Jinsook Ohta 11 and United States Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford for failing to declare his conviction 12 and sentence void in Bonilla v. Fourth App. Dist. Ct., No. 3:24-CV-00925-JO-KSC, 2024 13 WL 3882115 , at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2024). See Compl. at 3, 4. In fact, Judge Ohta 14 dismissed that case for the same reasons this case requires dismissal. See id. (“Even if 15 Bonilla were eligible to proceed [IFP], his claims would still fail because he impermissibly 16 seeks to vacate his state criminal judgment through the vehicle of a § 1983 lawsuit.”). 17 Judges are absolutely immune from damage liability for acts which are judicial in nature. 18 Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 , 227‒29 (1988). Judicial immunity applies to cases 19 brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for acts committed within the scope of judicial duties, 20 “even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, and are alleged to have been done 21 maliciously or corruptly.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978). “Ruling on a 22 motion is a normal judicial function, as is exercising control over the courtroom while court 23 is in session.” Duvall v. Cnty. of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124 , 1133 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended 24 on denial of reh’g (Oct. 11, 2001). “[A] judge will not be deprived of immunity because 25 the action [s]he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority; 26 rather, [s]he will be subject to liability only when [s]he has acted in the ‘clear absence of 27 all jurisdiction.’” Stump, 435 U.S. at 356‒57. 28 / / / 1 When absolute immunity applies, claims for damages are frivolous. See Baker v. 2 || King Cnty. Prosecutor’s Office, 981 F.2d 1257, at *1 (9th Cir. 1992) (unpublished); see 3 ||also Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889 , 892 n.1 (9th Cir. 2011) (“At the screening stage, 4 ||the court must dismiss the complaint or any portion thereof that is “frivolous, malicious, 5 || or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from 6 ||a defendant who is immune from such relief.’”’) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)). And if an 7 || action is frivolous, “there is by definition no merit to the underlying action and so no reason 8 |/to grant leave to amend.” See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 , 1127 n.8 (9th Cir. 2000) (en 9 || banc). 10 Conclusion 11 Accordingly, the Court: 12 (1) DENIES Bonilla’s Motion to Proceed IFP [ECF No. 2] as barred by 28 U.S.C. 13 || § 1915(g); 14 (2) DISMISSES Bonilla’s complaint without leave to amend both for failing to 15 || state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted and as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 16 1915A(b)(1) and (2); and 17 (3) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to close the case and accept □□ further 18 || filings in this matter except a timely-filed Notice of Appeal, which the Court CERTIFIES 19 || would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(3). 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 || Dated: December 6, 2024 2 aM. 22 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge 3 United States District Court