Cruz v. Simpson
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:22-cv-04898
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Cruz v. Simpson, Judge Gilliam denied Guillermo Trujillo Cruz’s request to proceed without paying fees, finding no imminent-danger exception, and denied his extension request as moot.
Guillermo Trujillo Cruz must pay the full filing and administrative fees within 28 days to continue the action; the court denied his request for an extension as moot. The order did not resolve the claims against R. Simpson.
What happened
Guillermo Trujillo Cruz filed a civil-rights lawsuit against R. Simpson and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. The court had identified at least three qualifying prior cases that generally prevent a prisoner from proceeding without paying fees.
Cruz argued that he faced imminent danger because Simpson allegedly threatened him, ordered a May 27, 2022 assault, and threatened another assault. The court found these allegations speculative and unsupported, and concluded they did not plausibly show imminent danger when the lawsuit was filed.
In Cruz v. Simpson, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied Cruz’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee and required him to pay it in full within 28 days. The court also denied as moot his request for more time to respond because his response was timely filed. If the fee is not paid, the court stated it will dismiss the action without prejudice to refiling after payment.
The detailed version
- Cruz v. Simpson · No. 4:22-cv-04898
- Haywood Gilliam
- Dec. 16, 2022
Background
Guillermo Trujillo Cruz, an incarcerated plaintiff proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against R. Simpson. Cruz asked to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee upfront. The court previously ordered him to explain why that request should not be denied under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s “three strikes” rule.
That rule generally prevents a prisoner from proceeding without prepaying the filing fee if the prisoner has brought at least three earlier cases that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim, unless the prisoner plausibly alleges that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the case was filed. The court stated that Cruz had been denied this status in at least seven other cases and that Cruz did not dispute having three qualifying strikes.
Imminent-Danger Exception
Cruz argued that he qualified for the exception because Simpson allegedly threatened him on May 26 and 27, 2022; ordered or admitted ordering an assault on May 27; threatened another assault in the near future; and threatened him again around the time the complaint was sent for filing.
The court found these allegations conclusory, suspect, and speculative. It noted that Cruz had not addressed the court’s concern about whether Simpson was responsible for the May 27 assault. The court also stated that, apart from Cruz’s unsupported claim that Simpson ordered the assault, the record showed only verbal threats that had not been accompanied by action causing serious physical injury. The court therefore found no plausible allegation that Cruz faced imminent danger when this action was filed.
Rulings
The court DENIED Cruz leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and required him to pay the full filing and administrative fees 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 after payment.
The court also DENIED as moot Cruz’s request for an extension of time to respond to the order to show cause because his response had been filed on time. The order addressed filing-fee status and timing; it did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.