Cruz v. Valdez
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:22-cv-04627
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
Cruz v. Valdez: Judge Gilliam denied fee-waiver status, required the full filing fee, and denied an extension request as moot.
Guillermo Trujillo Cruz must pay the full $402 filing and administrative fee within 28 days to proceed with the action. If he does not, the court said it will dismiss the action without prejudice to refiling upon payment.
What happened
In Guillermo Trujillo Cruz v. Valdez, et al., Guillermo Trujillo Cruz, an incarcerated person representing himself, brought a civil-rights case under a federal law allowing claims against state officials and asked to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court found that Cruz had three qualifying prior dismissals under the prisoner filing-fee law and that his allegations did not plausibly show he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed this case. The court therefore denied permission to proceed without prepaying the fees and required him to pay the full $402 filing and administrative fee.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. also denied as moot Cruz’s request for more time to respond because his response had been filed on time. Cruz had 28 days from the order to pay; otherwise, the court said it would dismiss the action without prejudice to refiling after payment.
The detailed version
- Cruz v. Valdez · No. 4:22-cv-04627
- Haywood Gilliam
- Dec. 16, 2022
Background
Guillermo Trujillo Cruz, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. He asked to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without prepaying the court’s filing fees. He also filed a statement arguing that he qualified for the imminent-danger exception to the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule.
The court had previously ordered Cruz to explain why it should not deny his request under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision generally prevents a prisoner from proceeding without prepaying fees after three prior cases were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, unless the prisoner plausibly alleges imminent danger of serious physical injury when the new complaint was filed.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that Cruz had not disputed having three qualifying strikes. Cruz argued that the exception applied because Valdez, Chapa, and Declue allegedly threatened him with assault, were connected to a May 27, 2022 assault, admitted having him assaulted, and continued threatening him. The court found these allegations conclusory and speculative. It also found no plausible basis to connect the defendants to the May 27 assault or to infer that another serious physical injury was imminent on August 1, 2022, when Cruz submitted the complaint for mailing.
The court therefore determined that Cruz had not plausibly shown imminent danger at the time of filing.
Rulings
The court denied Cruz leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). It required him to pay the full $402 filing and administrative fee 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 for an extension of time to respond to the October 31, 2022 order to show cause because his response had been timely filed. The order terminated the docket entries concerning both requests.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.