Cruz v. Gutierrez
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:19-cv-04726
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
Cruz v. Gutierrez: Judge Gilliam ordered Cruz to explain why his fee waiver should not be revoked under the three-strikes rule.
Guillermo Trujillo Cruz, whose authorization to proceed without prepaying the filing fee was subject to possible revocation; the case could also be dismissed if he failed to respond to the order.
What happened
In Cruz v. Gutierrez, Guillermo Trujillo Cruz, a prisoner representing himself, sued officer Gutierrez under a civil-rights law. The court had found that his allegations about sexual harassment during a clothed body search stated constitutional claims and had allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court said Cruz had at least three earlier cases or appeals that counted as strikes under the law. It also said his complaint did not allege facts showing that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury, an exception to the three-strikes rule.
The court ordered Cruz to explain within 28 days why his fee-waiver status should not be revoked. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. warned that failing to respond could lead to dismissal of the case, but the order did not itself revoke that status or dismiss the action.
The detailed version
- Cruz v. Gutierrez · No. 4:19-cv-04726
- Haywood Gilliam
- Jan. 16, 2020
Background
Guillermo Trujillo Cruz, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that officer Gutierrez sexually harassed him during a clothed body search in retaliation for filing grievances. The court previously determined that these allegations stated potentially valid Eighth Amendment and First Amendment claims. It then allowed Cruz to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without prepaying the filing fee.
Three-strikes issue
The Prison Litigation Reform Act generally prevents a prisoner from proceeding without paying filing fees when the prisoner has had three or more earlier federal actions dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim, unless the prisoner faces imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court reviewed earlier cases and an appeal involving Cruz and found that at least three qualified as strikes. Those included dismissals for failure to state a claim, a dismissal based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies that was clear from the complaint, and an appeal dismissed as frivolous. The court also found that Cruz's current complaint did not allege, and did not plausibly suggest, imminent danger of serious physical injury.
Order
The court ordered Cruz to show cause within 28 days why his in forma pauperis status should not be revoked under the three-strikes provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). This was an order requiring a response; it did not itself revoke his status or dismiss the case. The court stated that failure to respond as ordered would result in dismissal of the action without further notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.