(PC) Cruz v. Rodriguez
1:20-cv-00763
E.D. Cal.Jun 4, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Guillermo Trujillo Cruz, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on June 2, 2020.
- Court took judicial notice of multiple prior prisoner lawsuits by Plaintiff that were dismissed for failure to state a claim, including four identified Eastern District of California cases from 2015–2016.
- Section 1915(g) bars prisoners with three or more qualifying prior dismissals ("strikes") from proceeding IFP unless the prisoner was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.
- Plaintiff alleges that after reporting staff misconduct at North Kern State Prison in June 2019, officers spread false rumors, made threats, and conspired with other inmates who assaulted him on June 27, 2019; he alleges these threats continued through October 15, 2019 and fears future harm.
- The magistrate judge found Plaintiff had at least three strikes and concluded his June 2, 2020 complaint did not plausibly allege a real, present, or ongoing imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of filing.
- Recommendation: deny IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); require payment of the $400 filing fee within 30 days; refer the case back to the magistrate judge. Objections due within 14 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument / Court's Position | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff is barred from proceeding IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) absent an imminent-danger exception | Plaintiff says past assault and continuing threats from staff and inmates (stemming from his complaints) create ongoing/imminent danger at filing | Court notes Plaintiff has at least three prior qualifying dismissals (strikes) and that his June 2, 2020 allegations do not show a real, present, ongoing imminent danger | Court recommends denying IFP under § 1915(g); Plaintiff must pay $400 to proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2005) (describing the § 1915(g) three‑strikes rule)
- Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) (clarifying the imminent‑danger exception standard)
- Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310 (9th Cir. 1997) (PLRA aims to reduce frivolous prisoner litigation)
- O'Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2008) (dismissals styled as IFP denials can qualify as strikes)
- Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048 (8th Cir. 2003) (imminent-danger requires specific factual allegations of ongoing serious physical injury or a pattern showing likelihood of imminent injury)
- White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir. 1998) (vague or conclusory assertions of harm are insufficient)
- Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526 (7th Cir. 2002) (imminent danger requires a real, proximate threat; emergency‑type allegations)
- Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2014) (failure to timely object to magistrate judge recommendations may waive appellate rights)
- Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391 (9th Cir. 1991) (same principle regarding waiver on appeal)