Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01552/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01552-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Guillermo Trujillo Cruz
Plaintiff
J. Ostrander
Defendant
S. Savoie
Defendant

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

GUILLERMO TRUJILLO CRUZ,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

SAVOIE, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:21-cv-01552-GSA-PC

 

ORDER FOR CLERK TO RANDOMLY 

ASSIGN A UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

JUDGE TO THIS CASE

AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 

RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS BE DENIED UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(g), AND THAT PLAINTIFF BE 

REQUIRED TO PAY THE $402.00 FILING 

FEE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

(ECF No. 2.)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS

I. BACKGROUND

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

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

commencing this action, together with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 

U.S.C § 1915(g). (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) Plaintiff names as defendants Correctional Officer (C/O S. 

Savoie and Lieutenant J. Ostrander (“Defendants”).

Case 1:21-cv-01552-KES-GSA Document 5 Filed 10/25/21 Page 1 of 7
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

II. THREE-STRIKES PROVISION OF 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

28 U.S.C. § 1915 governs proceedings in forma pauperis. Section 1915(g) 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.”

“This subdivision is commonly known as the ‘three strikes’ provision.” Andrews v. King, 

398 F.3d 1113, 1116 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005) (hereafter “Andrews”). “Pursuant to § 1915(g), a 

prisoner with three strikes or more cannot proceed IFP.” Id.; see also Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 

F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007) (hereafter “Cervantes”) (under the PLRA,1“[p]risoners who 

have repeatedly brought unsuccessful suits may entirely be barred from IFP status under the three 

strikes rule[.]”). The objective of the PLRA is to further “the congressional goal of reducing 

frivolous prisoner litigation in federal court.” Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir. 

1997).

“Strikes are prior cases or appeals, brought while the plaintiff was a prisoner, which were

dismissed on the ground that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim,” Andrews, 

398 F.3d at 1116 n.1 (internal quotations omitted), “even if the district court styles such dismissal 

as a denial of the prisoner’s application to file the action without prepayment of the full filing 

fee,” O’Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008). Once a prisoner has accumulated 

three strikes, he is prohibited by section 1915(g) from pursuing any other IFP action in federal 

court unless he can show he is facing “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” See 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g); Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1051-52 (noting § 1915(g)’s exception for IFP 

complaints which “make[] a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of 

serious physical injury’ at the time of filing”).

///

1 Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e.

Case 1:21-cv-01552-KES-GSA Document 5 Filed 10/25/21 Page 2 of 7
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

While the PLRA does not require a prisoner to declare that § 1915(g) does not bar his

request to proceed IFP, Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1119, “[i]n some instances, the district court docket

records may be sufficient to show that a prior dismissal satisfies at least one of the criteria under

§ 1915(g) and therefore counts as a strike.” Id. at 1120. When applying 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g),

however, the court must “conduct a careful evaluation of the order dismissing an action, and

other relevant information,” before determining that the action “was dismissed because it was

frivolous, malicious or failed to state a claim,” since “not all unsuccessful cases qualify as a strike 

under § 1915(g).” Id. at 1121.

III. ANALYSIS

A review of the actions filed by Plaintiff reveals that Plaintiff 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 has filed 

numerous unsuccessful cases in the Eastern District of California under the names “Guillermo 

Trujillo Cruz,” “Guillermo Cruz Trujillo,” and “Guillermo Trujillo.” Court records reflect that 

on at least three prior occasions Plaintiff has brought actions while incarcerated that were 

dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

The Court takes judicial notice of the following cases: 

(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); and

(4) 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). 

The court has examined the orders dismissing the four cases cited above and finds that 

each of the cases was dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the district court’s decisions were 

upheld on appeal at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Case 1:21-cv-01552-KES-GSA Document 5 Filed 10/25/21 Page 3 of 7
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

The availability of the imminent danger exception turns on the conditions a prisoner faced 

at the time the complaint was filed, not at some earlier or later time. See Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 

1053. “[A]ssertions of imminent danger of less obviously injurious practices may be rejected as 

overly speculative or fanciful.” Id. at 1057 n.11. Imminent danger of serious physical injury 

must be a real, present threat, not merely speculative or hypothetical. To meet his burden under 

§ 1915(g), an inmate must provide “specific fact allegations of ongoing serious physical injury, 

or a pattern of misconduct evidencing the likelihood of imminent serious physical injury.”

Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003). “Vague and utterly conclusory 

assertions” of harm are insufficient. White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1231–32 (10th Cir. 

1998). That is, the “imminent danger” exception is available “for genuine emergencies,” where 

“time is pressing” and “a threat . . . is real and proximate.” Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 

(7th Cir. 2002).

Plaintiff has not satisfied the imminent danger exception to § 1915 by showing that he

was under a real, present threat at the time he filed this case. Plaintiff’s allegations do not suggest 

he “faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing.” Cervantes, 493 

F.3d at 1055 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). 

Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that on November 14, 2020 at North Kern State Prison, 

he was battered from behind with manufactured weapons on the facility’s recreational yard. 

(Comp., ECF No. 1 at 4:25 – 5:3.) He contends that the battery occurred because on April 27, 

2016, Defendant Correctional Officer (C/O) S. Savoie authored a Rules Violation Report (RVR) 

against Plaintiff falsely accusing him of a sex crime which triggered assaults on Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff claims that Defendant Savoie authored the false RVR because Plaintiff had reported 

sexual harassment by Defendant Savoie. Plaintiff alleges that three earlier assaults against him 

were also triggered by Defendant Savoie’s false RVR: one on August 11, 2016 at High Desert 

State Prison, one on August 29, 2018 at Kern Valley State Prison, and one on June 27, 2019 at 

Kern Valley State Prison. 

Plaintiff claims that Defendant Ostrander’s finding of guilt against Plaintiff on the April 

27, 2016 RVR was also a big factor in the assaults against Plaintiff because Defendant Ostrander 

Case 1:21-cv-01552-KES-GSA Document 5 Filed 10/25/21 Page 4 of 7
5

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

knew that the guilty finding would make Plaintiff vulnerable “prey” for assaults by others, and 

neither of the Defendants has made a good faith effort to expunge the RVR from Plaintiff’s 

central file, which constitutes failure to protect him from physical harm. (ECF No. 1 at 5:28.)

Plaintiff alleges that when a Southern Hispanic inmate in the general population who is 

falsely accused of a sex crime he is considered “no good” and can easily be a target of an assault 

by the Southern Hispanic race at any institution where he might be confined.. (Id. at 6:10-13). 

Plaintiff alleges that both Defendants Savoie and Ostrander have pursued and beaten him.

Plaintiff also alleges that excessive force was used against him on September 22, 2012, 

at Pelican Bay State Prison during an ongoing pattern of physical punishment; that on February 

3, 2021 at Kern Valley State Prison he was threatened with physical punishment by Defendants 

Savoie and Ostrander; and on April 11, 2021, he was battered by M. Gonzalez. 

These allegations fail to meet § 1915(g)’s exception for imminent danger. See Cervantes, 

493 F.3d at 1055-56 (plaintiff must allege to face a real, proximate and/or ongoing danger at the 

time of filing); Prophet v. Clark, No. CV 1-08-00982-FJM, 2009 WL 1765197, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 

June 22, 2009) (finding prisoner’s access to the courts, interference with legal mail, and 

retaliation claims insufficient to satisfy § 1915(g) exception for cases of “imminent danger of 

serious physical injury”). 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 October 21, 2021. 

Plaintiff’s assertions that he has been assaulted and threatened with physical harm at more than 

one facility by Southern Hispanic inmates because he was falsely accused of a sex crime2is not 

supported by facts. Moreover, the RVR is dated April 27, 2016, whereas the assaults Plaintiff 

complains of were allegedly committed on August 11, 2016, August 29, 2018 and June 27, 2019. 

Except for possibly of the assault of August 11, 2016, these assaults are too attenuated to 

demonstrate a nexus to the fact and date of the RVR, and in turn they are far too conjectural to 

demonstrate the Plaintiff at the time he filed this complaint was in imminent danger of future 

2 Plaintiff was accused in an RVR by Defendant Savoie of overfamiliarity because on April 27, 

2016, he told Savoie as he was leaning against the door wearing only boxer shorts, “You sexually arouse me when 

I see you.” (Exhibit to Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 44-45.) 

Case 1:21-cv-01552-KES-GSA Document 5 Filed 10/25/21 Page 5 of 7
6

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

assaults. Likewise, the allegations that Plaintiff was battered from behind on Nov. 14, 2020, 

threatened on Feb. 3, 2021, and battered on Apr. 11, 2021 are again too attenuated from the date 

of the 2016 RVR, and too remote from the date Plaintiff filed this complaint in October 2021 to 

demonstrate an ongoing threat of imminent danger. The law requires that there must be a nexus 

between the imminent danger that Plaintiff alleges and the claims he asserts in the complaint.

Plaintiff’s contention that he is afraid that the past assaults could happen again, without more,

simply does not show imminent danger under § 1915(g), nor that, other than by conjecture, it is 

connected to an Apr. 2016 RVR. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s broad allegations of danger are 

insufficient to survive the 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 $402.00 filing fee in full.

IV. CONCLUSION, ORDER, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, the Clerk is HEREBY ORDERED to randomly assign a United States 

District Court Judge to this case;

and

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, filed on October 21, 2021, be 

denied under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g);

2. Plaintiff be required to submit the $402.00 filing fee for this case in full within 

thirty days; and

3. This case be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

These findings and recommendations are 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 from the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 

written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 

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

Case 1:21-cv-01552-KES-GSA Document 5 Filed 10/25/21 Page 6 of 7
7

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

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: October 24, 2021 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01552-KES-GSA Document 5 Filed 10/25/21 Page 7 of 7