Turner v. Ghaly
- Edward Chen
- 3:22-cv-02564
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
Turner v. Ghaly: Judge Chen ordered Turner to explain why he should not lose fee-waiver status and have his case dismissed under the three-strikes rule.
Anthony DeWayne Lee Turner’s ability to proceed without paying the filing fee; the order did not yet finally dismiss his case or decide the merits of his claims.
What happened
Turner v. Ghaly is a civil-rights case filed by Anthony DeWayne Lee Turner, who represented himself and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. His complaint concerned medical treatment he received while incarcerated in 2019.
The court found that four earlier dismissals qualified as strikes under the prisoner three-strikes rule. It also found that Turner was not facing an ongoing risk of serious physical injury because the treatment had occurred years earlier and he was no longer at that prison. The court had not yet decided whether his current claims had merit.
Judge Edward M. Chen ordered Turner to submit a written explanation by November 4, 2022, why his fee-waiver request should not be denied and his case dismissed. Turner could avoid dismissal by paying the full filing fee, but the court said it would still review the complaint under the prisoner-screening statute.
The detailed version
- Turner v. Ghaly · No. 3:22-cv-02564
- Edward Chen
- Oct. 5, 2022
Background
Anthony DeWayne Lee Turner filed a self-represented civil-rights action concerning events in 2019, when he was incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison. He alleged that he received inadequate medical treatment there. Turner asked to proceed without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Three-strikes rule
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has had three or more earlier cases dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim generally may not proceed without paying the filing fee. The exception applies when the prisoner shows that he faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the new case.
The court reviewed four earlier dismissals involving Turner and concluded that each counted as a strike. The opinion states that the earlier cases included dismissals for failure to state a claim and dismissals based on a bar apparent from the complaints. The court therefore concluded that Turner had accumulated three strikes for purposes of the statute.
Imminent-danger exception
The court also concluded that Turner did not qualify for the imminent-danger exception. His complaint concerned medical treatment provided in 2019, and the complaint and its exhibits showed that he was incarcerated at a different prison when he filed this action in 2022. Because the treatment had already occurred and he was no longer before the medical team involved, the court found that any danger was not imminent and was not sufficiently connected to the current complaint.
Order
The court did not finally deny the fee-waiver request or dismiss the action in this order. Instead, it ordered Turner to show cause in writing by November 4, 2022, why his request to proceed without paying the filing fee should not be denied and why the action should not be dismissed under § 1915(g). The order stated that Turner could avoid dismissal by paying the full filing fee by the deadline.
The court also stated that the order was not the required initial screening of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Even if Turner paid the full filing fee, the court would still have to conduct that initial review and could then dismiss the complaint.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.