Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00124/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00124-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUILLERMO TRUJILLO CRUZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

BALLESTEROS,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00124-AWI-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO OBTAIN UNSIGNED COMPLAINT 

WITH ALL EXHIBITS

(ECF No. 8)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS BE DENIED

(ECF No. 2)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Guillermo Trujillo Cruz (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on January 23, 

2020. (ECF No. 1.) As the original complaint lacked the required signature, the Court ordered 

the original complaint stricken from the record and directed Plaintiff to file a signed complaint. 

(ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff filed a properly signed complaint on February 14, 2020. (ECF No. 6.)

Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion to obtain a copy of the unsigned 

complaint with all exhibits, (ECF No. 8), and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis,

(ECF No. 2).

///

Case 1:20-cv-00124-AWI-BAM Document 11 Filed 02/18/20 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

II. Motion to Obtain Unsigned Complaint

In his motion, Plaintiff requests that this Court return the original complaint filed on 

January 23, 2020, so he may adequately submit the signed complaint with specific dates and facts 

and exhibits in support. (ECF No. 8.)

As noted above, Plaintiff has already submitted a properly signed complaint, which 

includes specific dates and facts. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff is also reminded that he need not attach 

exhibits to his complaint to prove the truth of what is said in the complaint, and for screening 

purposes, facts stated in complaints are accepted as true. (See ECF No. 3, p. 3.) In addition, 

when documents are submitted to the Court in paper, those documents are scanned into the 

electronic court file and then the paper copy is discarded. (ECF No. 3, p. 2.) Accordingly, 

Plaintiff should not send original copies to the Court, and it is Plaintiff’s responsibility to 

maintain copies of all of his own filings and orders received from the Court.

Furthermore, Plaintiff is informed that generally, the Clerk of the Court will provide 

copies of documents at a cost of $0.50 per page. If Plaintiff needs copies from the Court, he may 

submit a check in the exact amount payable to “Clerk, USDC.”

III. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Plaintiff is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which provides that “[i]n no event shall a 

prisoner bring a civil action . . . under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior 

occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of 

the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state 

a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious

physical injury.”1

///

 

1 The Court takes judicial notice of the following United States District Court cases: (1) Trujillo v. Sherman, 

Case No. 1:14-cv-01401-BAM (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed on April 24, 2015 for failure to state a claim), aff’d, Case No. 

15-15952 (9th Cir. May 6, 2016); (2) Trujillo v. Ruiz, Case No. 1:14-cv-00975-SAB (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed on 

January 6, 2016 for failure to state a claim), aff’d, Case No. 16-15101 (9th Cir. December 15, 2017); and (3) Cruz v. 

Gomez, Case No. 1:15-cv-00859-EPG (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed on February 3, 2017 for failure to state a claim), aff’d, 

Case No. 17-15358 (9th Cir. October 25, 2017).

The Court also takes judicial notice of the following United States Court of Appeals case: Trujillo v. 

Gonzalez-Moran, Case No. 17-15200 (9th Cir.) (dismissed on August 21, 2017 as frivolous).

Case 1:20-cv-00124-AWI-BAM Document 11 Filed 02/18/20 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s signed complaint and finds that his allegations do not 

satisfy the imminent danger exception to section 1915(g).2 Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 

1053−55 (9th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Ballesteros, a correctional officer at 

Kern Valley State Prison, arranged for Plaintiff to be assaulted when he was transferred to North 

Kern State Prison (“NKSP”), in retaliation for Plaintiff filing a grievance. Plaintiff alleges that he 

is under imminent danger of serious physical injury because Defendant Ballesteros conspired 

with prison officials at NKSP to have Plaintiff transferred to another institution where he would 

be assaulted. Plaintiff alleges that on June 27, 2019, after his transfer, he was “maliciously” and 

“sadistically” targeted with battery in retaliation for filing his grievance. (ECF No. 1.) 

At the time this action was initiated, Plaintiff was housed at Pelican Bay State Prison. 

Although Plaintiff has been transferred to several different institutions since he initiated this 

action, the complaint includes only the most conclusory allegation that he is in imminent danger 

of serious physical injury, and includes no allegations that he was in such danger while he was 

housed at Pelican Bay State Prison. Therefore, Plaintiff has not alleged any imminent danger of 

serious physical injury at the time of filing and has not satisfied the exception from the three 

strikes bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff must pay the $400.00 filing fee if he wishes to 

litigate this action.

IV. Order and Recommendations

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to obtain the unsigned complaint with all exhibits, (ECF No. 8), is 

DENIED.

***

Furthermore, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be DENIED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g); and

2. Plaintiff be ORDERED to pay the $400 initial filing fee in full to proceed with this action.

///

 

2 The Court expresses no opinion on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims.

Case 1:20-cv-00124-AWI-BAM Document 11 Filed 02/18/20 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 

file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that the failure to file 

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the 

magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 

2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 15, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00124-AWI-BAM Document 11 Filed 02/18/20 Page 4 of 4