Turner v. Bush
- Edward Chen
- 3:20-cv-00541
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Turner v. Bush, Judge Chen ordered Edward L. Turner to explain why his fee waiver and case should not be dismissed under the prisoner-strikes rule.
Edward L. Turner and his civil action were affected. The order put his request to proceed without paying the filing fee and the continued existence of the action at risk, while giving him until May 26, 2020, to respond or pay the $400 filing fee.
What happened
In Turner v. Bush, Edward L. Turner, a prisoner representing himself, filed a civil case and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. The court reviewed whether a federal law limiting fee waivers for prisoners with three qualifying prior dismissals applied to him.
The court identified four earlier Turner cases that might count as qualifying dismissals, including cases dismissed for failure to state a claim and one dismissed as duplicative. The court did not make a final decision about the fee waiver or dismiss the case in this order.
Judge Chen ordered Turner to explain by May 26, 2020, why his fee waiver should not be denied and the case should not be dismissed. Alternatively, Turner could avoid dismissal under that rule by paying the full $400 filing fee by the deadline.
The detailed version
- Turner v. Bush · No. 3:20-cv-00541
- Edward Chen
- Apr. 22, 2020
Background
Edward L. Turner, a prisoner housed at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville, filed this civil action without a lawyer. He applied to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning he asked to proceed without paying the filing fee at the beginning of the case, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Legal standard
Section 1915(g), commonly called the prisoner “three-strikes” rule, generally bars a prisoner from proceeding without paying the filing fee if the prisoner previously brought at least three federal actions or appeals that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. The exception applies when the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court explained that it must evaluate the earlier dismissal orders and other relevant information, and that the prisoner must have notice of the potentially qualifying dismissals and an opportunity to respond before dismissal.
Earlier dismissals identified by the court
The court stated that the following four earlier dismissals might count under Section 1915(g):
- Turner v. Contra Costa County, No. 10-cv-2443 JSW, dismissed for failure to state a claim; - Turner v. Chung, No. 11-cv-865 JSW, dismissed for failure to state a claim; - Turner v. Townsend, Townsend & Crew, L.L.P., No. 11-cv-1241, dismissed as duplicative, with the dismissal order citing authority treating duplicative actions as potentially frivolous and malicious; and - Turner v. Vaughn, No. 14-cv-402 JSW, dismissed for failure to state a claim.
The court said it evaluated those matters using their dismissal orders and docket sheets.
Order
The court issued an order to show cause concerning a possible dismissal. It directed Turner to explain no later than May 26, 2020, why his request to proceed without paying the filing fee should not be denied and why this action should not be dismissed under Section 1915(g). Alternatively, Turner could avoid dismissal under that provision by paying the full $400 filing fee by the deadline.
The order did not finally deny Turner’s fee-waiver request or dismiss the action. It gave him notice and an opportunity to respond. Judge Edward M. Chen signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.