(PC) Cruz v. Savoie, et al.

Filing 33

ORDER ADOPTING 24 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing this Case without Prejudice for Failure to Obey the Court's Order to Pay Filing Fee signed by District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff on 01/05/2025. (Deputy Clerk EF)

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

v.

14

S. SAVOIE, et al.,

15

No. 1:21-cv-01552-KES-GSA (PC)

Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
THIS CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR
FAILURE TO OBEY THE COURT’S ORDER
TO PAY FILING FEE

Defendants.

Doc. 24

16
17

Plaintiff Guillermo Trujillo Cruz is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to

18

42 U.S.C. section 1983. This matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to

19

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On October 25, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

21

identifying plaintiff as a three strikes litigant within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and

22

concluding that he did not qualify for the imminent danger exception. See Doc. 5. The

23

magistrate judge therefore recommended that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be

24

denied. See id. On November 22, 2021, the then-assigned district judge adopted the findings and

25

recommendations in full and ordered that plaintiff pay the filing fee to proceed with his case.

26

Doc. 12.

27

In lieu of paying the filing fee, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

28

Doc. 13. On February 27, 2023, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal “[b]ecause the appeal is
1

1

so insubstantial as to not warrant further review.” Doc. 20 (citing in re Thomas, 508 F.3d 1225

2

(9th Cir. 2007)). In light of the Ninth Circuit’s order, on March 3, 2023, the assigned magistrate

3

judge issued an order requiring that plaintiff pay the filing fee in full by April 14, 2023. Doc. 21.

4

Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee as required.

5

Accordingly, on May 8, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and

6

recommendations recommending that this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to obey

7

the court’s order to pay the filing fee. Doc. 24. On May 23, 2023, plaintiff filed objections to the

8

findings and recommendations. Doc. 27. On June 5, 2023, plaintiff filed another motion to

9

proceed in forma pauperis and more objections to the findings and recommendations. Docs. 28,

10

29. On December 1, 2023, this matter was temporarily assigned to the No District Court Judge

11

docket due to the elevation of the then-assigned district judge to the Ninth Circuit. Doc. 30. On

12

March 13, 2024, the case was reassigned to the undersigned. Doc. 32.

13

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court conducted a de novo review of this case.

14

Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the findings and recommendations are

15

supported by the record and proper analysis and this case should be dismissed for plaintiff’s

16

failure to obey the court’s order to pay the filing fee in full.

17

In his objections, plaintiff does not dispute the magistrate judge’s analysis that plaintiff

18

has failed to obey a court order and that the Pagtalunan factors weigh in favor of dismissal. See

19

Docs. 27, 29 (citing Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002)). Rather, he argues

20

that the Court’s previous denial of plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis erred in

21

finding that plaintiff was not in imminent danger at the time he filed his complaint. See Docs. 27,

22

29. To the extent plaintiff is seeking reconsideration of the prior order denying him IFP status, he

23

fails to identify any new information or other basis for reconsideration, and the finding that

24

plaintiff was not in imminent danger at the time of his filing was not clearly erroneous. See Zeyen

25

v. Bonneville Joint District, #93, 114 F.4th 1129, 1138 (9th Cir. 2024) (court is bound by

26

previous decision in case unless it is clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice,

27

intervening controlling authority makes reconsideration appropriate, or substantially different

28

evidence was adduced at subsequent trial). Moreover, the Ninth Circuit dismissed his appeal of
2

1

the IFP denial as “insubstantial.” See Doc. 20.

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1. The findings and recommendations issued May 8, 2023, Doc. 24, are ADOPTED IN

4

FULL;

5

2. This matter is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to obey the Court’s order to

6

pay the filing fee, issued March 3, 2023 (see ECF No. 21; see also Doc. 12); and

7

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and to close this

8

case.

9
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 5, 2025
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3