Cruz v. Gutierrez ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GUILLERMO TRUJILLO CRUZ, Case No. 19-cv-04726-HSG 8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS SHOULD 9 v. NOT BE REVOKED 10 GUTIERREZ, 11 Defendant. 12 13 Plaintiff, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant 14 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 2, 2020, the Court screened the complaint and found that the 15 complaint’s allegation that defendant officer Gutierrez sexually harassed him during a clothed 16 body search in retaliation for plaintiff filing grievances stated cognizable Eighth Amendment and 17 First Amendment claims. Dkt. No. 9. On January 6, 2020, the Court granted plaintiff leave to 18 proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 12. The Court has since learned that, in the Eastern District 19 of California, plaintiff has been denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 20 1915(g) based on dismissals of actions in 2014 through 2017. See, e.g., Cruz v. White, et al., 2:19- 21 cv-1518 KJM KJN P, Dkt. Nos. 13 and 19 (E.D. Cal.); Cruz v. Chappius, 2:18-cv-0193 KJM KJN 22 P, Dkt. Nos 42 and 54 (E.D. Cal.). For the reasons set forth below, the Court orders plaintiff to 23 show cause, within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this order, why plaintiff’s in forma 24 pauperis status should not be revoked pursuant to the three strikes provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915. 26 DISCUSSION 27 I. PLRA’s Three-Strikes Provision 1 enacted, and became effective, on April 26, 1996. The PLRA provides that a prisoner may not 2 bring a civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, i.e., may not proceed in forma pauperis, “if the 3 prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought 4 an action . . . in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, 5 malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under 6 imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 7 For purposes of a dismissal that may be counted under Section 1915(g), the Ninth Circuit 8 gives this guidance: The phrase “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted” parallels 9 the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and apparently means the same thing. 10 Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). A case “is frivolous if it is ‘of little weight 11 or importance: having no basis in law or fact.’” Id. (citation omitted). “A case is malicious if it 12 was filed with the ‘intention or desire to harm another.’” Id. (citation omitted). “Not all 13 unsuccessful cases qualify as a strike under § 1915(g). Rather, § 1915(g) should be used to deny a 14 prisoner’s IFP status only when, after careful evaluation of the order dismissing an action, and 15 other relevant information, the district court determines that the action was dismissed because it 16 was frivolous, malicious or failed to state a claim.” Id. at 1121. 17 A court may count as strikes dismissals of district court cases as well as dismissals of 18 appeals. See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1178 (9th Cir. 1999) (prisoner does not get three 19 frivolous claims and three frivolous appeals before being barred by § 1915(g)). But the dismissal 20 of an appeal may count as a strike only if based on a qualifying reason under § 1915(g). A district 21 court is not required to announce in an order that its dismissal constitutes a strike under § 1915(g) 22 for that dismissal to later count as a strike. See Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1119 n.8. Nor is the 23 appellate court required to announce whether a dismissal of an appeal may be counted as a strike 24 in later cases. See Furnace v. Giurbino, 838 F.3d 1019, 1029 (9th Cir. 2016). 25 In determining whether a prior dismissal counts as a strike, the Court “should look to the 26 substance of the dismissed lawsuit, and not to how the district court labelled or styled the 27 dismissal.” Harris v. Harris, 935 F.3d 670, 673 (9th Cir. 2019) (internal quotations marks and 1 malicious or for failure to state a claim. Id. at 674. Even if certain claims in a lawsuit are 2 dismissed as frivolous, malicious or for failure to state a claim, that case will not qualify as a strike 3 if other claims are not dismissed or are dismissed for different non-enumerated reasons. Id. 4 (declining to impose strike where actions were dismissed in part for failure to serve, refusal to 5 exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, and quasi-judicial immunity). 6 A dismissal based on immunity does not constitute a strike because § 1915(g) omits the 7 immunity language as a ground for a strike. Harris, 935 F.3d at 675. There are rare cases where 8 immunity may be so clear on the face of the complaint that dismissal may qualify as a strike for 9 failure to state a claim, or where immunity is so obvious that the suit is frivolous and dismissal 10 counts as a strike. Id. at 676. “But these are exceptional cases where the affirmative defense is 11 readily apparent without resort to any additional information outside the four corners of the 12 complaint. Such will rarely be the case with immunity-based defenses.” Id. 13 A dismissal for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies based upon granting an 14 unenumerated 12(b) motion to dismiss in which evidence is considered, or upon granting a motion 15 for summary judgment, is not a dismissal for a qualifying reason under § 1915(g) (i.e., not a 16 dismissal for failure to state a claim) and may not be considered a strike. Richey v. Dahne, 807 17 F.3d 1202, 1208 (9th Cir. 2015). But a dismissal for failure to exhaust available administrative 18 remedies counts as a strike if the failure to exhaust was clear from the face of the complaint, which 19 would have been sufficient to dismiss under 12(b)(6). See El-Shaddai v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036, 20 1043-44 (9th Cir. 2016). 21 II. Plaintiff’s Strikes 22 The Court finds that, prior to this date, plaintiff has had at least three cases dismissed that 23 count as “strikes.”1 The Court takes judicial notice2 of: (1) Trujillo v. Sherman, C No. 1:14-cv- 24 1 The Court notes that plaintiff has filed at least six cases in this district, see Trujillo v. Lithe, C 25 No. 13-cv-05046 HRL; Cruz v. Gutierrez, C No. 19-cv-004726 HSG; Trujillo Cruz v. Kumbat, C No. 19-cv-05825 HSG; Cruz v. Pierston, C No. 19-cv-08039 HSG; and Cruz v. Ortiz, C No. 20- 26 cv-00176, and has filed at least thirty-nine cases in the Eastern District of California, see, e.g., Trujillo v. Alvarez, C No. 14-cv-00976-LJO-EPG; Guillermo Trujillo Cruz v. Gomez, et al., C No. 27 15-cv-00859-EPG; Cruz v. Biter, et al.C No. 17-cv-00084-AWI-MJS; Cruz v. Valdez, C No. 18- 1 01401-BAM (PC), 2015 WL 13049186 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2015), aff’d 632 Fed. App’x. 426 (9th 2 Cir. 2016); (2) Cruz v. Ruiz, C No. 1:15-cv-00975-SAB-PC, 2016 WL 8999460 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 3 2016), aff’d 688 Fed. App’x 435 (9th Cir. 2017); (3) Cruz v. Gomez, C No. 1:15-cv-00859 EPG 4 (PC), 2017 WL 1355872 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2017), aff’d 698 Fed. App’x 368 (9th Cir. 2017); (4) Trujillo v. Gomez, C No. 14-cv-01797 DAD DLB, 2016 WL 1704178 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 5 2016), report and recommendation adopted by Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations 6 and Dismissing the Action for Failure to Exhaust, Trujillo v. Gomez, C No. 14-cv-01797 DAD 7 DLB, Dkt. No. 49, entered Aug. 5, 2016, aff’d 688 Fed. App’x 452 (9th Cir. 2017); and (5) 8 Trujillo v. Gonzalez-Moran, C No. 17-15200 (9th Cir Aug. 21, 2017).3 The Court reviews how 9 the dismissals of these actions constitute “strikes” for the purposes of Section1915(g). 10 (1) Trujillo v. Sherman, C No. 1:14-cv-01401-BAM (PC), 2015 WL 13049186 (E.D. Cal. 11 Apr. 24, 2015). This action was dismissed for failure to state a claim because the complaint failed 12 to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8; but also because the appeals coordinator defendant was not 13 linked to, or liable for, any of the alleged constitutional violations; the claims against the CDCR 14 and unidentified state agency defendants were barred by the Eleventh Amendment; there is no 15 respondeat superior liability; and the failure-to-protect claims failed to allege that defendants knew 16 of, and disregarded any, particular risk of harm. See Trujillo v. Gomez, 2015 WL 13049186, at 17 *2-*4. The Eleventh Amendment bar was readily apparent from the face of the complaint without 18 resort to any additional information outside the four corners of the complaint. The complaint 19 therefore failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The dismissal qualifies as a 20 strike. Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1121 (dismissal for failure to state a claim within meaning of Fed. R. 21 Civ. P. 12 qualifies as strike); Harris, 935 F.3d at 675-76 (dismissal of case on immunity grounds 22 case may qualify as a strike where immunity is so clear on face of complaint or where immunity is 23 without the federal judiciary system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at 24 issue.” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (granting request to take judicial notice in § 1983 action of five prior cases in 25 which plaintiff was pro se litigant, to counter her argument that she deserved special treatment because of her pro se status). 26 3 Plaintiff is also known as Guillermo Cruz Trujillo, and in titling plaintiff’s cases, courts have presumed plaintiff’s last name to be Trujillo, Trujillo Cruz, or Cruz. The Court has confirmed that 27 the plaintiff in this action is the same plaintiff in the actions identified above as strikes in this 1 so obvious that suit is frivolous). 2 (2) Cruz v. Ruiz, C No. 1:15-cv-00975-SAB-PC, 2016 WL 8999460 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 3 2016). This action was dismissed for failure to state a claim because the property loss claim was 4 not cognizable under federal law because plaintiff had not alleged compliance with the California Tort Claims Act and because the bare allegations of retaliatory motive were insufficient to state a 5 claim for relief. The complaint therefore failed to state a claim upon which relief could be 6 granted. The dismissal qualifies as a strike. Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1121 (dismissal for failure to 7 state a claim within meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 qualifies as strike). 8 (3) Cruz v. Gomez, 2017 WL 1355872 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2017). This action was dismissed 9 for failure to state a claim because a claim that personal property was destroyed does not state a 10 federal law claim and the complaint’s conclusory allegations did not state a retaliation claim. The 11 complaint therefore failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The dismissal 12 qualifies as a strike. Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1121 (dismissal for failure to state a claim within 13 meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 qualifies as strike). 14 (4) Trujillo v. Gomez, C No. 14-cv-01797 DAD DLB, 2016 WL 1704178 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 15 28, 2016). This action was dismissed because the failure to exhaust administrative remedies was 16 clear from the face of complaint. 2016 WL 1704178, at *2, *4. The dismissal therefore qualifies 17 as a strike. El-Shaddai, 833 F.3d at 1043-44 (dismissal for failure to exhaust available 18 administrative remedies where failure to exhaust was clear from face of the complaint counts as a 19 strike). 20 (5) Trujillo v. Gonzalez-Moran, C No. 17-15200 (9th Cir Aug. 21, 2017). This appeal was 21 dismissed as frivolous and therefore counts as a strike. See Rodriguez, 169 F.3d at 1178. 22 The first four actions were dismissed by magistrate judges for failure to state a claim upon 23 which relief may be granted. In these cases, only plaintiff had consented to proceed before a 24 magistrate judge and the cases were dismissed before service of process on any defendant. The 25 Ninth Circuit has recently held that, although there is no longer a “dispute that a magistrate judge 26 lacks the authority to dismiss a case unless all parties have consented to proceed before the 27 magistrate judge,” a prisoner plaintiff “cannot escape” the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) consequences of 1 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 504-05 (9th Cir. 2017)). The dismissal of 2 || the first four actions listed above constitute strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and are no longer 3 pending. Thus, a challenge to the three strikes consequence of each dismissal is precluded by 4 Hoffman. 5 I. Complaint 6 The complaint alleges a constitutional violation occurred on January 19, 2019, six months 7 || Prior to plaintiff filing the complaint on July 26, 2019. See generally Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff has not 8 alleged that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. /d. Nor can it be plausibly g || inferred from the complaint’s allegations that plaintiff is in imminent danger of serious physical 10 injury. See Andrews IT, 493 F.3d at 1055 (Section 1915(g) requires plausible allegations of ll imminent danger of serious physical injury). . 2 CONCLUSION E 13 Accordingly, within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall show 14 cause why his in forma pauperis status should not be revoked pursuant to the three strikes 5 15 provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Failure to respond in accordance with this order will 16 result in dismissal of this action without further notice to plaintiff pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the 5 17 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to comply with a court order. 5 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: 1/16/2020 20 Abepued 3 Mb). HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28