Bonilla

Bonilla v. San Diego County Superior Court

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaOctober 28, 20243:24-cv-01927California1,054 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Steven Wayne BONILLA, Case No.: 24-cv-1257-AGS-BLM

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

vs. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF 2), DISMISSING COMPLAINT SAN DIEGO SUPERIOR COURT,

AND CLOSING CASE

Defendant. 9 Steven Wayne Bonilla, an inmate suing defendants for civil-rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, moves to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons below, that motion is denied, and the complaint is dismissed without prejudice. DISCUSSION Typically, parties instituting a civil action in a United States district court must pay filing fees of $405.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). But if granted the right to proceed in forma pauperis, a plaintiff need not pay those fees. Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). Prisoners like Bonilla, however, “face an additional hurdle.” Moore v. Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 657 F.3d 890, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). To further “the 19 …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.