Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01016/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01016-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
M. Chappuis
Defendant
Guillermo Trujillo Cruz
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

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

Plaintiff Guillermo Trujillo Cruz is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. 

On August 14, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations 

recommending that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied because he has 

suffered three or more strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and Plaintiff be required to pay the $400.00 

filing fee in full. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff filed objections on September 10, 2019. (ECF No. 9.) 

On December 20, 2019, the undersigned adopted the Findings and Recommendations in full 

and ordered Plaintiff to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full within thirty days. (ECF No. 13.)

On January 6, 2020, Plaintiff a “motion to show cause” and a motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis. (ECF Nos. 14, 15.) In the motion to show cause, Plaintiff appears to argue that he was in 

imminent danger of serious physical harm at the time of filing the complaint and he is unable to pay 

the $400.00 filing fee. 

GUILLERMO TRUJILLO CRUZ,

 Plaintiff,

v.

M. CHAPPUIS, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:19-cv-01016-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

SHOW CAUSE AND DIRECTING AS MOOT 

PLAITNIFF’S SECOND MOTION TO PROCEED 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

[ECF Nos. 14, 15]

Case 1:19-cv-01016-AWI-SAB Document 17 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 3
2

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

“A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court's decision, 

and recapitulation” of that which was already considered by the Court in rendering its decision. United 

States. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). To succeed, a party must 

set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.

See Kern–Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal. 1986). “A motion 

for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court 

is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change 

in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time 

when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Marilyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. 

Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (emphasis in original). Additionally, 

pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, when filing a motion for reconsideration, a party must show what 

“new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon 

such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule 230(j). 

As stated by the Magistrate Judge, “Plaintiff has not shown that he is at risk of any serious 

physical injury. Rather, in seeking monetary damages, Plaintiff contends that on August 29, 2018, 

while housed at Kern Valley State Prison he was subjected to excessive force because officer M. 

Chappuis wrote false and fabricated statements in the classification chrono dated August 3, 2016. 

Plaintiff is now housed at North Kern State Prison, and there are no allegations that he is in imminent 

danger of physical harm based on allegations of excessive force that took place over ten months ago at 

a different prison.” (ECF No. 6 at 2:21-26.) Further, the fact that Plaintiff is unable to pay the entire 

filing fee at this time does not alter the finding that he is subject to § 1915(g)’s three strikes bar. This 

is because under § 1915(g), “plaintiff’s IFP application is barred, notwithstanding his indigency, 

unless plaintiff can show that he ‘is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.’” Silva v. 

McDermott, No. C07-1278-JCC-JPD, 2007 WL 3125273, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 24, 2007). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration must be denied. 

//

//

//

Case 1:19-cv-01016-AWI-SAB Document 17 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 14) filed on January 6, 2020, is denied; 

2. Plaintiff’s second motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 15) filed on January 

20, 2020 is denied; 

3. Within twenty (20) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall pay the 

$400.00 filing fee in full or this action will be dismissed;

4. If Plaintiff fails to timely pay the $400 filing fee, this case will be closed without 

further notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 20, 2020 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 1:19-cv-01016-AWI-SAB Document 17 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 3