Guillermo Trujillo v. A. Leyva ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         DEC 18 2019
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    GUILLERMO CRUZ TRUJILLO,                         No. 18-16030
    Plaintiff-Appellant,             D.C. No. 1:18-cv-00399-LJO-GSA
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    A. LEYVA, Correctional Counselor;
    OSTRANDER, Lieutenant,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted December 11, 2019**
    Before:      WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    California state prisoner Guillermo Cruz Trujillo appeals pro se from the
    district court’s judgment dismissing his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action for failure to pay
    the filing fee after concluding that Trujillo is not entitled to proceed in forma
    pauperis (“IFP”). We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    novo. Washington v. L.A. Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 
    833 F.3d 1048
    , 1054 (9th Cir.
    2016). We may affirm on any basis supported in the record. Thompson v. Paul,
    
    547 F.3d 1055
    , 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
    Trujillo was not entitled to proceed IFP because at the time Trujillo filed the
    complaint, Trujillo had filed three actions or appeals that qualified as “strikes”
    under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (g). See Trujillo v. Gonzalez-Moran, et al., Case No. 17-
    15200 (9th Cir. 2017); Cruz v. Ruiz, et al., No. 1:14-cv-00975-SAB (PC) (E.D.
    Cal. January 6, 2016); Trujillo v. Sherman, et al., No. 1:14-cv-01401-BAM (PC)
    (E.D. Cal. April 24, 2015). Moreover, Trujillo did not plausibly allege that he was
    “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he lodged the
    complaint. See 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (g); Andrews v. Cervantes, 
    493 F.3d 1047
    , 1055-
    57 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    18-16030
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-16030

Filed Date: 12/18/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/18/2019