Turner v. Paley
- Edward Chen
- 3:21-cv-01525
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
Turner v. Paley: Judge Chen ordered Turner to explain why pauper status should not be revoked after finding three strikes and no imminent danger.
Anthony Dewayne Lee Turner’s permission to proceed without paying the filing fee was placed at risk; unless he showed cause or paid the filing fee by November 4, 2022, the action could be dismissed.
What happened
In Turner v. Paley, Anthony Dewayne Lee Turner, an incarcerated person representing himself, brought a civil-rights lawsuit under a federal civil-rights law. The court had dismissed his complaint with permission to amend and had allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court said four of Turner's earlier cases counted as dismissals for making legally inadequate or barred claims. It also said his current allegations about past medical treatment did not show that he faced an ongoing, serious physical danger when he filed this case.
Judge Chen ordered Turner to explain in writing by November 4, 2022, why his fee-waiver status should not be revoked and the case dismissed. The order also said he could avoid dismissal by paying the filing fee; it did not itself revoke his status or dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Turner v. Paley · No. 3:21-cv-01525
- Edward Chen
- Oct. 5, 2022
Background
Anthony Dewayne Lee Turner, an inmate at Mule Creek State Prison, filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The court had reviewed his complaint under the federal prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, dismissed it with leave to amend, and separately granted him permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court later learned that Turner had more than three earlier cases dismissed as “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision generally bars a prisoner with three or more qualifying dismissals from proceeding without paying the filing fee, unless the prisoner shows that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury.
Prior dismissals
The court identified four earlier dismissals that it considered potential strikes:
- Turner v. Rosenfeld, Case No. CIV-S-11-0622-EFB-P, dismissed for failure to state a claim.
- Turner v. Rosenfeld, Case No. 2:18-CV-2796-TLN-DMC, dismissed because the claims were barred on their face under Heck.
- Turner v. Napa State Hospital, Case No. 19-cv-00318-EMC, dismissed for failure to state a claim after Turner had an opportunity to amend.
- Turner v. Sacramento City Police, Case No. 19-0417-CKD-P, dismissed as barred under Heck on the face of the complaint and for failure to state a claim, after an opportunity to amend.
The court reviewed the dismissal orders and docket records and concluded that each dismissal counted as a strike. It explained that dismissals for failure to state a claim qualify under § 1915(g), and that a dismissal based on an affirmative defense such as a Heck bar can also count when the bar is apparent from the complaint itself.
Imminent-danger exception
The court also considered whether Turner qualified for the statutory exception for prisoners facing imminent danger of serious physical injury. Turner’s complaint alleged inadequate medical treatment at SQSP in 2020, including a brief prescription of medication to which he was allergic. The complaint named medical providers at SQSP, as well as Napa State Hospital and Atascadero State Hospital.
The court determined that the alleged treatment had already occurred by the time Turner filed this action in 2021 and that he was no longer housed with the medical team involved in the alleged treatment. It therefore concluded that Turner did not qualify for the imminent-danger exception.
Order
The court did not immediately revoke Turner’s permission to proceed without paying the filing fee or dismiss the action. Instead, Judge Edward M. Chen ordered Turner to show cause in a written filing by November 4, 2022, why his fee-waiver status should not be revoked and the action dismissed under § 1915(g). The order stated that Turner could avoid dismissal by paying the filing fee by that deadline.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.