Cruz v. Davis

Background

Guillermo Trujillo Cruz, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed a self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials Davis, Lopez, Austen, Johnson, Thompson, and Hamilton. He asked to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. The court issued an order requiring him 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 from proceeding without prepaying the filing fee if the prisoner previously brought at least three cases that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a legally sufficient claim. An exception applies if the prisoner plausibly alleges that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.

Cruz’s allegations and response

Cruz did not dispute that he had three qualifying strikes. He argued that the imminent-danger exception applied because the defendants allegedly threatened him with assault, arranged for inmates to attack him on May 27, 2022, and threatened him again beginning around the date he filed this action. He also said the conduct was retaliation for his prison grievances.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that Cruz had not plausibly shown imminent danger when he filed the complaint. It found his allegations that the defendants arranged the May 27 attack speculative and unsupported. The attack involved inmates, not correctional officers, and Cruz did not provide specific allegations linking those inmates to the named defendants. The court also found his retaliation theory suspect because the alleged retaliatory conduct began before the grievance Cruz identified as its trigger.

The court further noted that Cruz had made similar allegations in other actions, including claims that different prison officials ordered the same attack or resumed threatening him on the day he filed each action. The court stated that, even assuming verbal threats had continued, the record did not plausibly indicate that the defendants intended to carry them out.

Ruling and effect

The court denied Cruz leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). It ordered him to pay 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 court also denied as moot Cruz’s request that the clerk answer the complaint and provide a docket number because he had already been given a case number. The order terminated the motions identified as docket entries 2, 3, and 5. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims in this order.