Cruz v. Bedusa
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:22-cv-00670
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Cruz v. Bedusa, Judge Gilliam ordered the prisoner to explain why he should be denied permission to proceed without paying fees under the three-strikes rule.
Guillermo Trujillo Cruz, whose request to proceed without paying the filing fee was subject to a show-cause order, and J. Bedusa, the defendant in the underlying civil-rights action.
What happened
In Cruz v. Bedusa, Guillermo Trujillo Cruz alleged that J. Bedusa took some of his property, including legal books and hygiene items, in retaliation for another lawsuit.
The court said Cruz had at least three prior cases that counted as strikes under the law governing prisoners’ fee waivers. It found that his allegations described a past violation, not an immediate risk of serious physical injury.
The court ordered Cruz to explain within 28 days why his request to proceed without paying filing fees should not be denied. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. stated that failing to respond as ordered would result in dismissal of the case without further notice.
The detailed version
- Cruz v. Bedusa · No. 4:22-cv-00670
- Haywood Gilliam
- Feb. 16, 2022
Background
Guillermo Trujillo Cruz, a prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against J. Bedusa. Cruz asked to proceed without paying the filing fee, a status known as proceeding in forma pauperis.
Cruz alleged that, after returning to Pelican Bay State Prison from an out-of-court trip on September 21, 2021, he found that some of his property was missing. The missing items allegedly included legal books and several hygiene items. He alleged that Bedusa intentionally took the items in retaliation for Cruz’s lawsuit against a correctional officer.
Three-strikes rule
The Prison Litigation Reform Act generally prevents a prisoner from proceeding without paying the filing fee if the prisoner has had three or more earlier cases dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or insufficiently pleaded. The exception applies when the prisoner plausibly alleges that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.
The court stated that Cruz had at least three earlier dismissals that counted as strikes. It also stated that Cruz had previously been denied permission to proceed without paying fees because he had not shown that the immediate-danger exception applied.
Court’s analysis
The court characterized Cruz’s allegations as describing a past constitutional violation that had not caused physical injury. It concluded that the allegations did not plausibly show that Cruz faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury on or about January 23, 2022, the date the court treated as the filing date under the prisoner-mailbox rule.
Order
The court did not immediately deny the fee-waiver request. Instead, it ordered Cruz to show cause within 28 days why the request should not be denied under the three-strikes rule. The court stated that failing 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 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.