Cruz v. Davis

Background

Guillermo Trujillo Cruz, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He asked to proceed without paying the filing fee, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis.

The court explained that the Prison Litigation Reform Act bars a prisoner from proceeding without paying fees if the prisoner has brought three or more earlier cases while incarcerated that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim. The exception is when the prisoner plausibly alleges that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.

Prior strikes

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 action. In several earlier Northern District cases, the court denied or revoked his fee-waiver status under the three-strikes rule. The court identified at least three earlier cases that counted as strikes and concluded that Cruz could proceed without paying the fee only if he showed that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed this complaint.

Allegations and imminent-danger analysis

The complaint names Pelican Bay State Prison Facility B correctional officers Davis, Lopez, Johnson, Thompson, and Austen. Cruz alleged that, after he returned to the prison on October 18, 2021, the defendants threatened him daily with assault, threatened to assign him a cellmate who would become involved in a physical fight with him, and retaliated against him for reporting misconduct by other prison officials.

Cruz also alleged that, on May 27, 2022, the defendants arranged for other inmates to attack him. He said that three inmates were involved and that he was punched repeatedly in the upper torso, causing abrasions, scratches, and swelling to his face, upper back, and the left side of his head. He also alleged that he required hospitalization for an injury to the index finger of his right hand.

The court found that Cruz had not plausibly alleged that the defendants ordered the May 27 attack. It noted that the attack involved inmates Robles and Lopez and Cruz, with no correctional officers involved, and that the complaint provided no specific evidence linking the named defendants to those inmates. The court also noted that Cruz had identified different prison officials as responsible for the same attack in other recently filed lawsuits. It characterized his imminent-danger claim as “fanciful and speculative.”

Order

One passage states that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court “DENIES plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis.” The order’s title and conclusion, however, direct Cruz to show cause within 28 days why his request should not be denied. The conclusion further states that failure to respond as ordered will result in dismissal of the action under Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order. The opinion therefore contains an apparent inconsistency between the stated denial and the later show-cause directive; it does not clearly state that the action itself was dismissed at this stage.