Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01270/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01270-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Guillermo Trujillo Cruz
Plaintiff
L. Gonzalez
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.

L. GONZALEZ,

Defendant.

No. 1:19-cv-01270-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND 

(Doc. Nos. 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 October 11, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g) be denied because plaintiff had suffered three or more prior strike dismissals of actions 

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

within thirty (30) days. (Doc. No. 8 at 2–3.) 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 November 8, 2019, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and 

recommendations. (Doc. No. 12.)

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 plaintiff’s 

Case 1:19-cv-01270-DAD-SAB Document 17 Filed 03/24/20 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

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 under the provision for prisoners who face “imminent danger of serious physical 

injury.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). In his objections, plaintiff merely asserts that he “genuinely 

fears he will continue to face more of the same abuse,” referring to a prior incident of alleged 

excessive use of force, and that “the Office of Internal Affairs turn[ed] a blind-eye to that risk and 

did nothing to protect him from that risk.” (Doc. No. 12 at 3–4.) However, plaintiff’s objections 

do not address the magistrate judge’s finding that “[p]laintiff presents absolutely no allegations 

that he faced a present threat of serious physical injury at the time he filed the complaint, as his 

allegations relate solely to the alleged excessive force that took place over two months prior to 

filing the complaint.” (Doc. No. 8 at 2.) Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections provide no basis 

upon which to reject the pending findings and recommendations.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 11, 2019 (Doc. No. 8) are

adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 7) is denied;

3. Within thirty (30) 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 forewarned 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: March 24, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01270-DAD-SAB Document 17 Filed 03/24/20 Page 2 of 2