Cruz v. Simpson

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 in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee.

Cruz named R. Simpson, identified as a Pelican Bay control booth officer. Cruz alleged that, from December 5, 2016, through December 22, 2019, Simpson and other employees threatened daily to assault him or arrange an assault in retaliation for grievances Cruz had filed. Cruz also alleged that on May 26, 2022, he overheard Simpson agreeing with others to participate in an assault against him; that Simpson threatened him with a beating that day; and that inmates Robles and Lopez assaulted him on May 27, 2022, causing serious injuries. Cruz further alleged that Simpson later threatened him and directed coworkers to have him attacked.

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 for failure to state a claim. The exception applies when 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 12 cases in the Northern District of California, including this one. It also stated that at least three of Cruz's earlier cases counted as strikes and that several Northern District cases had denied or revoked his permission to proceed without paying the fee because he had not shown that the imminent-danger exception applied.

Court's analysis

The complaint was provided to prison authorities for mailing on August 22, 2022. The court assessed the alleged danger as of that filing date. It concluded that Cruz's allegations did not support an inference that he faced imminent danger from Simpson on August 22. The court noted that Simpson no longer worked on Facility B, where Cruz was housed, and that Cruz had not alleged another assault after May 27, despite alleging that Simpson had directed coworkers to attack him. The court also characterized the claim that Simpson was linked to the May 27 assault as speculative and fanciful.

Order

The court did not yet deny Cruz's request to proceed without paying the fee. Instead, it ordered him to show cause within 28 days why the request should not be denied under the three-strikes rule. The court warned that failure to respond in accordance with the order 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.