Bonilla v. Bashant

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed Steven Wayne Bonilla’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay the required filing fee or properly seek in forma pauperis status. The court also concluded that Bonilla was barred from proceeding in forma pauperis under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule because he lacked a plausible allegation of imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court denied as moot his request for judicial notice and motion for summary judgment, certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and directed the Clerk to close the case.

Holdings

1. A civil action cannot proceed when the plaintiff has neither paid the required filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) nor submitted a properly supported application to proceed in forma pauperis.
2. A prisoner who has accumulated three or more qualifying strikes may not proceed in forma pauperis unless the complaint plausibly alleges that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of filing.
3. Recusal was not warranted because Plaintiff offered only conclusory allegations and no factual evidence of judicial bias.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the action should be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) or submit a properly supported application to proceed in forma pauperis.
2. Whether Plaintiff was barred from proceeding in forma pauperis under the PLRA three-strikes provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), because he had accumulated more than three qualifying dismissals and did not plausibly allege imminent danger of serious physical injury.
3. Whether Plaintiff's conclusory allegations of judicial fraud and bias required recusal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455.

Disposition

dismissed