Trujillo Cruz v. Etzel
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:22-cv-03742
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Trujillo Cruz v. Etzel, Judge Gilliam ordered the prisoner to explain why he should be allowed to proceed without paying fees despite three prior dismissals.
Guillermo Trujillo Cruz’s request to proceed without prepaying the filing fee was affected. The order also required him to respond within 28 days and warned that failing to do so would result in dismissal of the action.
What happened
Guillermo Trujillo Cruz, an incarcerated person representing himself, sued correctional officer A. Etzel under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that Etzel damaged his property, retaliated against him, and arranged for another assault after he filed grievances.
The court said Cruz had at least three earlier cases that counted as strikes under the prisoner-litigation law. Prisoners with three such dismissals generally cannot proceed without paying filing fees unless they show that they faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury when they filed their complaint.
The court found Cruz’s allegations did not show that kind of immediate danger because the alleged assault occurred before he filed the complaint, and his allegations about Etzel’s role were speculative. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered Cruz to explain within 28 days why his request should not be denied; the court did not deny the request in this order.
The detailed version
- Trujillo Cruz v. Etzel · No. 4:22-cv-03742
- Haywood Gilliam
- July 6, 2022
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.
Cruz alleged that on or about November 22, 2021, correctional officer A. Etzel, along with receiving and release staff, damaged his personal property in retaliation for his reports about other officers’ alleged destruction of his property. He also alleged that Etzel refused to let him send the damaged property home. Cruz further alleged that on or about May 27, 2022, Etzel arranged for him to be assaulted in front of his cell in retaliation for filing a prison grievance. The complaint asserted excessive-force and retaliation claims, as well as claims involving damaged property and the alleged assault.
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 earlier federal cases dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim. An exception applies if the prisoner was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.
The court stated that Cruz had filed at least 39 cases in the Eastern District of California and at least eight cases in the Northern District of California, including this action. In seven of the other Northern District cases, the court had found that Cruz had at least three qualifying dismissals and had not shown that he qualified for the imminent-danger exception. Based on those rulings, the court concluded that Cruz could not proceed without prepaying the filing fee unless he demonstrated imminent danger when he filed this case.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Cruz’s allegations did not support an inference that he faced imminent danger from Etzel on June 19, 2022, the date Cruz provided the complaint to prison authorities for mailing. The alleged assault occurred on May 27, 2022, and the court identified no allegations of threats or physical violence by Etzel after that date. The court also found Cruz’s allegations inconsistent and vague. In particular, it described his assertion that Etzel caused the May 27 attack by using “anonymous resources” as conclusory and speculative.
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 the three-strikes rule. The order did not itself deny that request or dismiss the action. It 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), for failure to comply with a court order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.