Trujillo-Cruz v. Tincher

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 asked to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.

The complaint alleges that, on December 11 and 12, 2018, Pelican Bay officers S. Tincher and Jarvis repeatedly tried to make Trujillo-Cruz expose or rub his genitals through his clothing. According to the allegations, the officers did this in retaliation for his reporting serious employee misconduct and to blackmail or manipulate him into being assaulted by other inmates. He also alleges that the officers spread lies about him, sexually harassed him, threatened him with physical injury, and ordered other inmates to assault him. Trujillo-Cruz stated that he had not been physically injured, but feared injury because the alleged harassment, threats, and other efforts to harm him were continuing.

Three-strikes rule

The Prison Litigation Reform Act generally prevents a prisoner from proceeding without prepaying filing fees if the prisoner has brought at least three earlier federal cases while incarcerated or detained that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim. The exception applies if the prisoner was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.

The court described Trujillo-Cruz as a frequent litigant and stated that he had filed at least 39 cases in the Eastern District of California and six cases in the Northern District of California during the preceding year, including this action. In five of the other Northern District cases, the court had found that he had at least three qualifying dismissals and had not shown that the imminent-danger exception applied. The court therefore concluded that he could not proceed without prepaying the fee unless he showed that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed this complaint.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that the complaint described an alleged past constitutional violation that caused emotional suffering but no physical injury. It also noted the complaint’s statement that prison officials had successfully protected Trujillo-Cruz from the alleged harm. The court held that these allegations did not plausibly show that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury on April 12, 2020, the filing date identified in the order.

Order

The court ordered Trujillo-Cruz to show cause within 28 days why his request to proceed without prepaying the filing fee should not be denied under the three-strikes provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). This was an order to explain, not a final denial of the fee request. The court warned that failing to respond as ordered would result in dismissal of the action without further notice under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to comply with a court order. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered the order.