Cruz v. Pierston
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:19-cv-08039
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Guillermo Trujillo Cruz v. Pierston, Judge Gilliam ordered Cruz to explain why his fee-waiver request should not be denied under the three-strikes rule.
Guillermo Trujillo Cruz's request to proceed without prepaying the filing fee and the continuation of his civil-rights action were affected; the order also concerned the claims against Pierston and the other defendants.
What happened
Guillermo Trujillo Cruz, an incarcerated person representing himself, brought a civil-rights lawsuit under federal law against Pierston and others. He asked to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
The court found that Cruz had at least three earlier cases or appeals that qualified as strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court also found that his current allegations described past events, not an imminent danger of serious physical injury, and stated that one 2019 allegation was duplicative of another case.
Judge Tavern S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered Cruz to explain within 28 days why his request to proceed without prepaying fees should not be denied. The court did not yet deny the request; it warned that failing to respond as ordered would result in dismissal of the action without further notice.
The detailed version
- Cruz v. Pierston · No. 4:19-cv-08039
- Haywood Gilliam
- Jan. 16, 2020
Background
Guillermo Trujillo Cruz, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. He requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.
Three-strikes rule
The Prison Litigation Reform Act generally prevents a prisoner from proceeding without prepaying the filing fee if the prisoner has had three or more prior federal actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim. An exception applies if the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court took judicial notice of five earlier matters involving Cruz and determined that at least three qualified as strikes. The court found that three earlier actions were dismissed for failure to state a claim, one was dismissed because failure to exhaust administrative remedies was clear from the complaint, and one appeal was dismissed as frivolous. The court also concluded that challenges to the first four dismissals were barred under the cited appellate precedent because those dismissals were no longer pending and had been entered before service on the defendants.
Current complaint
The complaint alleged that defendants harassed Cruz, verbally threatened him, spread rumors, tried to provoke violence, retaliated against him, and failed to provide legal materials or law-library access promptly. The court characterized these allegations as involving past constitutional violations and found that they did not allege serious physical injury or an imminent risk of such injury. The court also stated that the complaint's alleged 2019 civil-rights violation was the subject of a separate action and must be dismissed as duplicative.
Order
The court ordered Cruz to show cause within 28 days why his request to proceed without prepaying the filing fee should not be denied under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the three-strikes provision. This was an order to explain, not a final denial of the fee-waiver request. The court warned that failure to respond as ordered would result in dismissal of the action without further notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.