Cruz

Cruz v. Pierston

Bad Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJune 29, 20204:19-cv-08039California355 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GUILLERMO TRUJILLO CRUZ, Case No. 19-cv-08039-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON

9 v. APPEAL

10 PIERSTON, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 20 11 Defendants.

12 13 Plaintiff filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. No. 1. On 14 March 9, 2020, the Court denied plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 15 U.S.C. § 1915(g) because, prior to the date that he filed this action, plaintiff had at least three 16 cases dismissed as “strikes” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Dkt. No. 14. The Court 17 ordered plaintiff to pay the filing and administrative fees in full if he wished to proceed with the 18 action. Dkt. No. 14. On April 29, 2020, the Court dismissed this action for failure to pay the 19 filing and administrative fees, and entered judgment in favor of defendants. Dkt. Nos. 15, 16. On 20 May 18, 2020, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.