Cruz v. Calderon

Background

Guillermo Trujillo Cruz, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this pro se civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He asked the court to return his complaint so he could comply with the Northern District of California’s electronic-filing requirement, requested permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, and filed a document titled “motion of notification that civil rights action 1983 was electronically mail.”

The operative complaint names Pelican Bay State Prison correctional officials Calderon, Valdez, Hamilton, Simpson, and Romero. Cruz alleged that officials retaliated against him for grievances and lawsuits, were involved in assaults and threats against him, and conspired with other prison officials to harm him. He also alleged that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury.

Analysis

The Prison Litigation Reform Act generally bars a prisoner from proceeding without prepaying the filing fee if the prisoner has had three or more prior actions dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, unless the prisoner was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.

The court reviewed Cruz’s earlier cases and found at least three qualifying strikes. It discussed four cases that it determined qualified: an earlier case dismissed for failure to state a failure-to-protect claim; two earlier cases dismissed for failure to state claims involving property deprivation and retaliation; and an appeal denied as frivolous.

The court then examined whether the imminent-danger exception applied. It concluded that Cruz’s allegations about assaults, retaliation, threats, and a conspiracy were conclusory, speculative, vague, and fanciful. The court also found that the complaint did not clearly connect the defendants to an earlier attack or identify specific grievances filed against them. It therefore ordered Cruz to show cause why his request to proceed without prepaying the filing fee should not be denied under the three-strikes provision.

Ruling

The court denied as moot Cruz’s request to have the complaint returned because he had complied with the electronic-filing requirement. It also denied as moot his “motion of notification” because it did not request action from the court.

The court did not finally grant or deny the request to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. Instead, it gave Cruz 28 days from the date of the order to explain why the request should not be denied under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The order states that failure to respond as directed will result in dismissal of the action without further notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), for failure to comply with a court order. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order.