(PC) Cruz v. Pfeifer et al, No. 1:2020cv01492 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: AMENDED ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations 5 signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/10/2020.(Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Cruz v. Pfeifer et al Doc. 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GUILLERMO TRUJILLO CRUZ, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 1:20-cv-01492-DAD-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, v. C. PFEIFER, et al., Defendants. AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS, AND DIRECTING PAYMENT OF FILING FEE (Doc. Nos. 2, 3) 17 18 19 Plaintiff Guillermo Trujillo Cruz is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 20 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On October 22, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 23 recommendations, recommending that plaintiff not be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis and 24 instead be directed to pay the required filing fee in full if he wishes to proceed with this action 25 because: (1) he is subject to the three strikes bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and (2) the 26 allegations in his complaint do not satisfy the “imminent danger of serious physical injury” 27 exception to § 1915(g). (Doc. No. 2.) Those findings and recommendations were served on 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days 2 from the date of service. (Id.) On November 12, 2020, plaintiff timely filed objections. (Doc. 3 No. 4.) Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis concurrently with his 4 objections. (Doc. No. 3.) 5 Plaintiff’s objections appear to outline his contention that he has been in imminent danger 6 since December 2013. (Doc. No. 4 at 3.) However, the findings and recommendations concluded 7 that plaintiff was not in imminent danger because he filed this action over 15 months after the 8 events alleged in his complaint occurred. (Doc. No. 2 at 2.) Plaintiff’s objections fail to address 9 that conclusion or to otherwise explain how he was in imminent danger at the time he filed his 10 complaint in this action. 11 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 12 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 13 objections (Doc. No. 4), the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the 14 record and by proper analysis. 15 Accordingly, 16 1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 22, 2020 (Doc. No. 2) are 17 adopted in full; 18 2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 3) is denied; 19 3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff is required to pay in full the $402.001 filing fee for this action; 20 4. Plaintiff’s failure to pay the required filing fee as ordered will result in the 21 22 dismissal of this action without prejudice; and 5. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: 27 28 December 10, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 The court’s previous order (Doc. No. 5) mistakenly listed the filing fee as $405.00. This amended order reflects only this correction of the required filing fee amount. 1 2
]]>
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.
