Cruz v. Valdez

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 asked for permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Cruz sued prison employees identified as property officer Valdez, floater staff member Chapa, and landing floor officer Declue. He alleged that Valdez, Chapa, and Declue threatened to beat, stab, or assault him in January 2022 in retaliation for grievances he had filed. He further alleged that prison staff had him assaulted by other inmates on May 27, 2022. The complaint asserted claims based on excessive force and retaliation under the Eighth and First Amendments.

The 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 federal cases dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or legally insufficient. The exception applies when the prisoner plausibly alleges that he faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint.

The court stated that Cruz had filed at least 39 cases in the Eastern District of California and at least 12 cases in the Northern District of California, including this one. In several earlier cases, courts had denied or revoked permission for him to proceed without paying the filing fee under the three-strikes rule. The court found that at least three of Cruz’s earlier dismissals counted as strikes.

Imminent-danger analysis

The court concluded that Cruz’s allegations did not plausibly show that he faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury on August 1, 2022, the date he gave the complaint to prison authorities for mailing. The court noted that the alleged threats were not shown to have caused physical injury or to have placed him in immediate danger on that date.

The court also found that Cruz offered no evidence connecting the defendants to the May 27 assault beyond a vague reference to “anonymous resources.” Even if the defendants were connected to that assault, the court found no allegations supporting a reasonable inference that another assault was imminent two months later. The court also found the retaliation allegations unsupported because only two referenced grievances predated the January threats, and neither identified or involved these defendants.

Order

The court ordered Cruz to show cause within 28 days why his request to proceed without paying the filing fee should not be denied under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 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). This order was not itself a final denial of the fee request and did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims.