Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00006/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00006-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUILLLERMO TRUJILLO CRUZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. SAVOIE, et al.

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00006-CDB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(Doc. 2)

14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD

Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge

Plaintiff Guillermo Trujillo Cruz (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner incarcerated at Pelican 

Bay State Prison proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 

1). Plaintiff filed the instant action on January 2, 2024, along with a motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis. (Docs. 1-2).

Discussion

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) was enacted “to curb frivolous 

prisoner complaints and appeals.” Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1099-1100 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Pursuant to the PLRA, the in forma pauperis statute was amended to include section 1915(g), a 

non-merits related screening device that precludes prisoners with three or more “strikes” from 

proceeding in forma pauperis unless they are under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir. 2007). The statute 

Case 1:24-cv-00006-NODJ-CDB Document 4 Filed 01/16/24 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

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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

In determining whether a case counts as a “strike,” “the reviewing court looks to the 

dismissing court’s action and the reasons underlying it.... This means that the procedural 

mechanism or Rule by which the dismissal is accomplished, while informative, is not 

dispositive.” Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).

A review of the actions filed by Plaintiff reveals that he is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

and is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis unless Plaintiff was, at the time the 

complaint was filed, under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Plaintiff notes he has 

filed over 10 previous lawsuits and highlights three that were “dismissed without prejudice” for 

failure to state a claim or for failure to pay the filing fee. See (Doc. 1 at 2). The Court takes 

judicial notice1of the following United States District Court cases, although not exhaustive, 

which are properly deemed qualifying § 1915(g) strikes: (1) Cruz v. Ruiz, No. 1:14-cv-00975-

SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed for failure to state a claim on January 6, 2016); (2) Trujillo v. 

Sherman, No. 1:14-cv-01401-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed for failure to state a claim on 

April 24, 2015); (3) Cruz v. Gomez, No. 1:15-cv-00859-EPG (PC) (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed for 

failure to state a claim on February 3, 2017); Cruz v. Maldonado, No. 1:18-cv-00696-LJO-JLT 

(PC) (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed for failure to state a claim on September 18, 2019).2

Because Plaintiff has at least three qualifying strikes, the issue now becomes whether 

Plaintiff has met the imminent danger exception, which requires Plaintiff to show that he is under 

(1) imminent danger of (2) serious physical injury and which turns on the conditions he faced at 

1

Judicial notice may be taken of court records. United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 

119 (9th Cir. 1980).

2 A dismissal for a failure to state a claim is a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Moore v. Maricopa Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 657 F.3d 890, 893-94 (9th Cir. 2011).

Case 1:24-cv-00006-NODJ-CDB Document 4 Filed 01/16/24 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 time he filed his complaint on January 2, 2024 (with application of the mailbox rule). 

Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053-56 (9th Cir. 2007). Conditions that posed imminent 

danger to Plaintiff at some earlier time are immaterial, as are any subsequent conditions. Id. at 

1053. While the inquiry is merely procedural rather than a merits-based review of the claims, the 

allegations of imminent danger must still be plausible. Id. at 1055. 

Here, Plaintiff, as he has done in numerous other cases, including Cruz v. Savoie, No. 

1:21-cv-01350-HBK (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jul. 29, 2022) (findings and recommendations adopted on 

November 10, 2022, and appeal dismissed by sub nominee on February 27, 2023), seeks to 

attribute past attacks from other inmates as related to an allegedly false rule violations report 

written by Defendant S. Savoie in 2016. (Doc. 1 at 3-5). Plaintiff alleges he was assaulted on 

August 1, 2023, and August 2, 2023. Id. Plaintiff asserts he has suffered an extensive history of 

assaults because of Defendant Savoie’s report. Id. at 5.

Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that he faced a real, present threat of serious 

physical injury at the time he filed his complaint on January 2, 2024, five months after the alleged 

assaults took place. Moreover, the August 1, 2023, and August 2, 2023, assaults are too 

attenuated to demonstrate a nexus to the report written by Defendant Savoie dated April 27, 2016

(Doc. 1 at 29). The law requires a nexus between the imminent danger that Plaintiff alleges and 

the claims he asserts in the instant complaint. Plaintiff appears to claim his past assaults could 

happen again (Doc. 1 at 3-5), but without more, Plaintiff’s conclusory statements do not show 

imminent danger under § 1915(g). It is mere conjecture that his prior attacks are related to 

Defendant Savoie’s 2016 report. Plaintiff’s broad allegations of danger are insufficient to survive 

dismissal of this action.

Therefore, the court finds that Plaintiff may not proceed in forma pauperis with this action 

and must submit the appropriate filing fee in order to proceed with this action. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis should be denied, and he should be precluded 

from proceeding with this case until after he pays the $405.00 filing fee in full.

/ / /

Case 1:24-cv-00006-NODJ-CDB Document 4 Filed 01/16/24 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

Conclusion and Recommendation

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to assign a 

district judge to this action and RECOMMENDS that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) be DENIED; and,

2. Plaintiff be ordered to pay the $402.00 filing fee in full within 30 days.

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

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of

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 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 

time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00006-NODJ-CDB Document 4 Filed 01/16/24 Page 4 of 4