Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01570/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01570-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Guillermo Trujillo Cruz
Plaintiff
Ochoa
Defendant

Document Text:

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUILLERMO TRUJILLO CRUZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

OCHOA, Correctional Officer at North 

Kern State Prison,

Defendant.

No. 1:19-cv-01570-DAD-JDP (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATIONS TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(Doc. Nos. 3, 4, 7, 8)

Plaintiff Guillermo Trujillo Cruz is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On November 20, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations, recommending that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) be denied because plaintiff had three or more prior strike 

dismissals and that he be ordered to pay the required $400.00 filing fee for this action in full 

within thirty (30) days. (Doc. No. 7.) The findings and recommendations were served on 

plaintiff and contained notice that objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days 

after service. (Id. at 3.) On December 16, 2019, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and 

recommendations. (Doc. No. 9.) 

Case 1:19-cv-01570-DAD-JDP Document 12 Filed 02/05/20 Page 1 of 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

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including all of plaintiff’s 

objections, the court concludes that the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are 

supported by the record and proper analysis.

Although plaintiff does not contest that he has accumulated at least three prior strike 

dismissals, enough to be barred by the “three strikes” provision, he contends that he qualifies for 

the exception for prisoners who face “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g). However, plaintiff’s objections do not address the magistrate judge’s point that the

“alleged threats and harassment at the North Kern facility,” where the events at issue in this case

allegedly took place, do not appear to “put him in imminent danger at Pelican Bay,” the facility 

where plaintiff was incarcerated at the time of the filing of this action.

1

(Doc. No. 7 at 2.)

Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 20, 2019 (Doc. No. 7) are 

adopted;

2. Plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. Nos. 3, 4, 8) are denied;

3. Within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall 

pay the $400.00 filing fee in full in order to proceed with this action;

4. Plaintiff is warned that failure to pay the filing fee within the specified time will 

result in the dismissal of this action; and

5. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1

 In addition, defendant refers to a prison official named “S. Savoie” as the defendant in this 

action, despite that individual not being a named party to this case. (See Doc. No. 9 at 1–2.)

Case 1:19-cv-01570-DAD-JDP Document 12 Filed 02/05/20 Page 2 of 2