Bonilla v. The Void Judgment of Alameda County, Case No. H-12210-A
| Steven Wayne Bonilla |
| The Void Judgment of Alameda County, Case No. H-12210-A |
| 3:2020cv00881 |
| May 7, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| Jill L Burkhardt |
| Dana M Sabraw |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 pr |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 21, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 Supplemental Complaint [ECF No. #1 ] by Steven Wayne Bonilla. Nunc Pro Tunc 6/15/2020.(jms) |
Filing 4
Notice of Document Discrepancies and Order Thereon by Judge Dana M. Sabraw Accepting Document: Supplemental Complaint [ECF No. #1 ], from Plaintiff Steven Wayne Bonilla. Non-compliance with local rule(s), Fed. R. Civ. P. l5(d) - Supplemental pleadings require court order. OTHER: IFP Motion pending [ECF No. 3]; Complaint submitted for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e) and 1915A. Nunc Pro Tunc 6/15/2020. Signed by the Chambers of Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 6/22/2020.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jms)
|
| Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Steven Wayne Bonilla. (jms) |
|
Filing 2
ORDER DISMISSING Civil Action without Prejudice for Failing to Pay Filing Fee required by 28 U.S.C. 1914(a) and/or Failing to move to Proceed in Forma Pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a). The Court DISMISSES this action sua sponte without prejudice for failure to pay the $400 civil filing and administrative fee or to submit a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1914(a) and Section 1915(a); GRANTS Plaintiff thirty (30) days leave from the date this Order is filed to: (a) prepay the entire $400 civil filing and administrative fee in full; or (b) complete and file a Motion to Proceed IFP which includes a certified copy of his trust account statement for the 6-month period preceding the filing of his Complaint. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 5/27/2020.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(IFP form mailed to Plaintiff)(aef)(jrd)
|
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Against The Void Judgment of Alameda County, Case No. H-12210-A, filed by Steven Wayne Bonilla. ($400.00 Filing Fee, Fee Not Paid, IFP Not Filed) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)The new case number is 3:20-cv-881-DMS-JLB. Judge Dana M. Sabraw and Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt are assigned to the case.[Case in Screening per 28 USC 1915] (jms)(jrd) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Bonilla v. The Void Judgment of Alameda County, Case No. H-12210-A | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: The Void Judgment of Alameda County, Case No. H-12210-A | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Steven Wayne Bonilla | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
