Bonilla v. Plourd

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed Steven Wayne Bonilla’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failing to pay the required filing fee or submit a properly supported in forma pauperis application. The court also determined that Bonilla was barred from proceeding in forma pauperis under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes provision because he had accumulated more than three qualifying dismissals and had not plausibly alleged imminent danger of serious physical injury.

Holdings

1. A civil action may not proceed when the plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) nor obtained leave to proceed in forma pauperis under § 1915(a).
2. A prisoner who has accumulated three or more prior dismissals qualifying under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) may not proceed in forma pauperis in a new civil action unless the prisoner satisfies the imminent-danger exception.
3. The imminent-danger exception to § 1915(g) requires a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of filing; the danger must also be fairly traceable to the alleged unlawful conduct and redressable by the court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the action could proceed when Plaintiff had not paid the filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) or filed a properly supported IFP application.
2. Whether Plaintiff was barred from proceeding in forma pauperis under the PLRA three-strikes provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
3. Whether Plaintiff satisfied the imminent-danger exception to the PLRA three-strikes bar.

Disposition

dismissed