Cruz v. Bedusa
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:22-cv-00670
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Cruz v. Bedusa, Judge Gilliam denied reconsideration and denied as moot Cruz’s renewed request to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Guillermo Trujillo Cruz and J. Bedusa; Cruz’s earlier action remained dismissed without prejudice, and Cruz could not proceed under the renewed fee-waiver request addressed by this order.
What happened
In Cruz v. Bedusa, Guillermo Trujillo Cruz, who was representing himself, sued correctional officer J. Bedusa under a federal civil-rights law. The court had previously denied Cruz permission to proceed without paying the filing fee and dismissed the case without prejudice under the rule limiting such permission for prisoners with three qualifying prior cases.
Cruz asked the court to reconsider, arguing that Bedusa threatened him daily and arranged for him to be assaulted. The court found that Cruz already knew about the threats when he responded to the court’s earlier order, so they were not newly discovered evidence. The court also found no clear legal error or change in controlling law, and noted that the report about the assault identified inmates Robles and Lopez but did not mention Bedusa.
Judge Gilliam denied Cruz’s renewed request for reconsideration. The judge also denied Cruz’s renewed request to proceed without paying the filing fee as moot, meaning the request no longer required a separate decision after reconsideration was denied. The order terminated both pending motions.
The detailed version
- Cruz v. Bedusa · No. 4:22-cv-00670
- Haywood Gilliam
- Oct. 31, 2022
Background
Guillermo Trujillo Cruz, an inmate housed at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against correctional officer J. Bedusa. On March 4, 2022, the court denied Cruz permission to proceed without paying the filing fee under the prisoner “three-strikes” rule in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Because Cruz did not pay the filing fee in full, the court dismissed the action without prejudice. The Ninth Circuit later dismissed Cruz’s appeal under a pre-filing review order, finding the appeal too insubstantial for further review.
Motions and allegations
Cruz filed a renewed motion for reconsideration and a renewed request for permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. He argued that Bedusa retaliated against him for filing a grievance and a lawsuit against Bedusa’s co-worker, Officer Chandler, and for filing Grievance No. 172502 on October 3, 2021. Cruz alleged that Bedusa threatened him with assault daily from October 3, 2021, through May 27, 2022, and arranged for inmates to assault him on May 27, 2022.
Court’s analysis
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which permits reconsideration of a final order in limited circumstances, including newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in controlling law. The court found that Cruz’s allegations about daily threats were known to him when he responded to the court’s earlier order and therefore did not qualify as newly discovered evidence. Cruz also had not shown clear error or an intervening change in the law.
The court further stated that verbal threats, without more, were insufficient to show imminent danger of serious physical injury, particularly because the alleged threats continued for months without Bedusa physically harming Cruz. The rules-violation report concerning the May 27 assault stated that inmates Robles and Lopez carried it out and did not mention Bedusa. The court concluded that Cruz had not established a basis under Rule 60(b) to reconsider the dismissal under the three-strikes rule.
Disposition
The court DENIED the renewed request for reconsideration. It DENIED Cruz’s renewed request for permission to proceed without paying the filing fee as moot. The order terminated Docket Nos. 16 and 17. This order did not decide the underlying civil-rights allegations on their merits.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.