Trujillo Cruz v. Calderon

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 to proceed without paying the filing fee, a status commonly called proceeding without paying fees because of inability to pay.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act generally bars a prisoner from proceeding without paying fees if the prisoner has had three or more earlier federal cases dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. This is known as the “three-strikes” provision. An exception applies if 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 thirty-nine cases in the Eastern District of California and at least twelve cases in the Northern District of California, including this one. In several earlier proceedings, the court had found that at least three of Cruz’s cases counted as strikes and had denied or revoked his ability to proceed without paying fees. The court therefore concluded that Cruz could proceed without paying fees only if he showed that the imminent-danger exception applied.

Complaint and imminent danger

Cruz alleged that correctional officers Calderon, Hamilton, Ford, Nelson, and Cena arranged or encouraged other people to threaten, harass, and assault him in retaliation for grievances and a prior civil-rights lawsuit. He alleged that he was assaulted by other inmates on May 27, 2022, and that some defendants continued threatening to arrange another assault.

The court found that Cruz had not plausibly alleged that the named defendants ordered the May 27 assault. It noted that the assault involved three inmates and no correctional officers, that the defendants were assigned to other prison yards at the time, and that Cruz offered only conclusory statements connecting them to the attack. The court also noted that the grievances had been filed and resolved two to three years earlier, that the defendants’ alleged reasons for acting together were unclear, and that Cruz had identified different prison officials as responsible for the same assault in other recently filed cases.

Ruling

The court described Cruz’s claim of imminent danger as “fanciful and speculative” and stated that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), it “DENIES” his leave to proceed without paying the filing fee. The order nevertheless directed Cruz, within 28 days, to show cause—meaning explain to the court—why his request should not be denied under the three-strikes provision. It warned that failure to respond would result in dismissal of the action without further notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order.