Turner v. Allison
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:18-cv-02061
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Turner v. Allison: Judge Rogers denied reconsideration and reaffirmed dismissal under the prisoner-filing rule.
Anthony R. Turner and his civil-rights action; the order also left in place the dismissal affecting his claims against Kathleen Allison and the other defendants.
What happened
In Anthony R. Turner v. Kathleen Allison, et al., Turner, a state prisoner representing himself, brought a civil-rights case seeking damages for alleged violations during his incarceration. The court found that he had three or more qualifying prior cases and had not shown that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury, so it dismissed the action without prejudice and denied his requests to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Turner later asked the court to vacate the judgment and requested copies of records for his appeal. Because he had already appealed, the court denied the records request as moot and treated the request to vacate as a motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b), rather than Rule 59(e), because it was filed more than ten days after judgment.
Judge Rogers denied reconsideration. She found that Turner’s motion relied on papers the court had already considered and identified no ground warranting relief, and she reaffirmed the dismissal under the prisoner-filing rule.
The detailed version
- Turner v. Allison · No. 4:18-cv-02061
- Yvonne Rogers
- Dec. 27, 2019
Background
Anthony R. Turner, a state prisoner incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His amended complaint sought damages for alleged civil-rights violations connected to his incarceration.
The court previously found that Turner had brought at least three earlier actions or appeals while incarcerated that had been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner with that history generally cannot proceed without paying the filing fee unless he shows that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court found that Turner had not shown imminent or ongoing danger when he filed his complaint and amended complaint.
On March 15, 2019, the court dismissed the action without prejudice to refiling in a new case after paying the filing fee, struck the amended complaint, denied Turner’s requests to proceed without paying the filing fee, and issued judgment.
Motion and governing standard
Turner filed a notice of appeal and then filed a motion titled as a request to vacate the judgment under Rule 59(e), along with a request for copies of the complaint, exhibits, and record excerpts for his appeal. Because the appeal had already been filed, the court denied the request for copies as moot.
The court construed the request to vacate as a motion for reconsideration. It ruled that the motion was untimely under Rule 59(e) because it was not filed within ten days of judgment, so it would be treated as a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b). Rule 60(b) permits relief for specified reasons, such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief. For the general provision in Rule 60(b)(6), the court explained that the basis for relief must be extraordinary.
Ruling
Judge Yvonne Rogers found no basis for reconsideration. The court stated that Turner’s two-page motion did not explain why reconsideration was warranted and instead relied on earlier papers that the court had already considered. The court therefore found no grounds for relief, reaffirmed the dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and denied the motion for reconsideration. The order terminated Docket No. 31.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.