Cruz v. Chandler

Filing 14

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING ( 12 , 13 ) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION FOR RESPONSE. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2021)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GUILLERMO TRUJILLO CRUZ,
Plaintiff,

8

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION
FOR RESPONSE

v.

9
10

Re: Dkt. Nos. 12, 13

CHANDLER,
Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 20-cv-03421-HSG

12
Plaintiff, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant

13
14

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff has filed a motion for clarification requesting that the

15

Court review the record, vacate the dismissal, and grant him leave to proceed in forma pauperis

16

(Dkt. No. 12) and a motion for response. The Court construes these motions as renewed motions

17

for reconsideration, and DENIES these motions for the following reasons.
DISCUSSION

18
19

I.

Background

20

On September 28, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis

21

pursuant to the three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), finding that Plaintiff’s claims of

22

imminent danger were speculative. Dkt. No 7. The Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the $400 filing

23

and administrative fee in full by October 26, 2020 or face dismissal of this action. Dkt. No. 7.

24

Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee by the deadline.

25

On October 29, 2020, the Court dismissed this action without prejudice to re-filing upon

26

payment of the full filing fee, and entered judgement in favor of Defendant. Dkt. Nos. 8, 9. That

27

same day, Plaintiff filed objections to the Court’s September 28, 2020 order denying leave to

28

proceed in forma pauperis, and filed a renewed in forma pauperis application. Dkt. No. 10. The

1

Court construed these objections as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60

2

and denied the motion for reconsideration because Plaintiff had not set forth clear error, mistake,

3

or any other grounds to warrant reconsideration. Dkt. No. 11.

4

II.

Pending Motions

5

In his motion for clarification, Plaintiff argues that the Court erred in dismissing his case

6

with prejudice on the grounds that he failed to pay the filing fee or otherwise communicate with

7

the Court because he communicated with the Court on October 16, 2020 regarding his eligibility

8

for in forma pauperis status. Plaintiff further argues that the Court is without jurisdiction to

9

dismiss this case prior to defendants served because the undersigned is a magistrate judge.
Plaintiff requests that the Court review the record, vacate the dismissal, and grant him leave to

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 12. In his motion for response, Plaintiff again argues that the

12

Court is without jurisdiction to dismiss this case prior to defendants served because the

13

undersigned is a magistrate judge. He also argues that he should be allowed to proceed in forma

14

pauperis because he is indigent and unable to obtain any prison job that would allow him pay the

15

filing fee. Dkt. No. 13.
Plaintiff’s arguments are both factually incorrect and without merit. The Court dismissed

16
17

this action without prejudice because Plaintiff had failed to pay the filing fee (Dkt. No. 8), and not

18

because he failed to communicate with the Court. The undersigned is not a magistrate judge and

19

has full authority to dismiss this case. Finally, Section 1915(g) provides that an inmate who has

20

previously filed three or more actions that qualify as strikes within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §

21

1915(g) and fails to demonstrate that he was in imminent danger at the time he filed the complaint

22

must be denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, regardless of whether he is indigent.

23

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s renewed motions for reconsideration. Dkt. Nos. 12,

24

13.

25

CONCLUSION

26

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s renewed motions for

27

reconsideration. Dkt. Nos. 12, 13.

28

//
2

1

This order terminates Dkt. Nos. 12, 13. This case remains closed.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4
5

Dated: 1/7/2021
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3