Turner v. Patrice & Associates
- Edward Chen
- 3:22-cv-07490
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Turner v. Patrice & Associates, Judge Chen dismissed Terrance Turner’s amended complaint with prejudice because it did not plausibly state a claim under Rule 8.
Terrance Turner and Patrice & Associates; the amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice.
What happened
In Turner v. Patrice & Associates, Terrance Turner, representing himself, sued an employment recruiter and others over his inability to get a job. He later filed an amended complaint naming only Patrice & Associates.
The court adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed the amended complaint. It found that the complaint made broad accusations but did not clearly explain facts showing how Patrice & Associates harmed Turner or why he was entitled to relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a).
Judge Edward Chen dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, meaning the order barred Turner from bringing that amended complaint again. Turner did not object to the recommendation by the deadline.
The detailed version
- Turner v. Patrice & Associates · No. 3:22-cv-07490
- Edward Chen
- Aug. 8, 2023
Background
Terrance Turner represented himself and proceeded without paying the filing fee. He initially sued Patrice & Associates, various companies and their CEOs, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, alleging breach of contract and fraud related to his inability to obtain a job. After the court ordered him to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim and lack of venue, Turner filed an amended complaint naming only Patrice & Associates.
Magistrate Judge Beeler recommended dismissing the amended complaint. Turner did not file objections by the July 17, 2023 deadline. The case was then reassigned to Judge Edward Chen because magistrate-judge jurisdiction required the appearance and consent of all parties.
Court’s reasoning
The court adopted Judge Beeler’s report and recommendation. It determined that the amended complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires a complaint to provide a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.
The amended complaint listed general accusations, including fraud, conspiracy, theft, larceny, bodily harm, wire fraud, tortious interference, breach of contract, negligence, promissory estoppel, lack of competency, and misrepresentation. The court found that these allegations did not coherently explain the factual basis for any harm Patrice & Associates allegedly caused, other than Turner’s allegation that he did not get a job. The court also noted that the complaint contained significant ranting and swearing and agreed that it was not minimally viable.
Disposition
Judge Chen adopted the report and recommendation and dismissed Turner’s amended complaint with prejudice. The order disposed of Docket No. 17.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.