GUILLERMO CRUZ TRUJILLO, AKA Guillermo Trujillo Cruz v. S. SAVOIE, Correctional Officer

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUILLERMO CRUZ TRUJILLO, AKA
Guillermo Trujillo Cruz,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
S. SAVOIE, Correctional Officer,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 19-17432
D.C. No. 1:19-cv-01024-LJO-JDP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 20, 2021**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, 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 denying Trujillo’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district
* 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).
FILED
APR 27 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-17432
court’s interpretation and application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Andrews v.
Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007). We reverse and remand.
The district court determined that the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act’s
“three strikes” provision barred Trujillo from proceeding IFP because Trujillo did
not plausibly allege that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical
injury” at the time he lodged the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). However, a
review of the record demonstrates that Trujillo plausibly alleged that he faced
imminent danger of serious physical injury from other inmates due to defendant
Savoie’s allegedly falsified report of Trujillo’s sexual misconduct. See Williams v.
Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2015) (court should liberally construe a
prisoner’s “facial allegations” and determine if the complaint “makes a plausible
allegation” of imminent danger); see also Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055 (discussing
the imminent danger exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)).
REVERSED and REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --