GUILLERMO TRUJILLO V. A. LEYVA, No. 18-16030 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 18 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GUILLERMO CRUZ TRUJILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-16030 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. 1715200 (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, 105557 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)). AFFIRMED. 2 18-16030

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.