Trujillo Cruz v. Etzel

Background

Guillermo Trujillo Cruz, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. He sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court ordered him to show cause—meaning to explain—why that request should not be denied under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s “three strikes” provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision generally bars a prisoner who has had three or more qualifying prior cases dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim from proceeding without paying the fee, unless the prisoner plausibly alleges an imminent danger of serious physical injury.

Cruz submitted multiple responses. He alleged that A Etzel and other prison employees had threatened him, that an assault occurred on May 27, 2022, and that the threats continued. He also alleged that Etzel ordered the assault in retaliation for Cruz’s use of the prison grievance system. The court treated his additional filings as supplemental responses, rather than as separate motions addressing the merits of his claims.

Court’s analysis

The court relied on prior rulings finding that Cruz had been denied permission to proceed without paying under § 1915(g) in at least seven other cases. It therefore concluded that he had suffered at least three qualifying “strikes.”

The court then considered whether the imminent-danger exception applied. It explained that danger must be assessed when the complaint was filed, which the court identified as on or about June 19, 2022. The alleged assault occurred earlier, on May 27, 2022. The court found no sufficiently specific allegations of threats or physical violence after that assault and found Cruz’s allegations inconsistent, vague, conclusory, and speculative. It also found that the alleged connection between the assault and a grievance was not plausible because the grievance concerning damaged property was filed after the assault. The court concluded that Cruz had not plausibly shown an imminent danger of serious physical injury connected to the legal violations alleged in the complaint.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied the request to proceed without paying under § 1915(g). The court also denied as moot the “Motion to Clarify Newly Discovered Evidence to the Imminent Danger of Serious Physical Injury.” Cruz may proceed only if he pays the $402 filing and administrative fee in full within 28 days of the order. The court stated that if the fee was not received by that deadline, it would dismiss the action without prejudice to refiling upon payment of the full fee. The order terminated the matters listed as Docket Nos. 2 and 11; it did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims on their merits.