Turner v. Athene
- Thomas Hixson
- 5:23-cv-06369
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Turner v. Athene, Judge Hixson ordered Terrance Turner to explain his filing, standing, and financial inconsistencies before deciding whether to deny fee waiver and recommend dismissal.
Terrance Turner, who was ordered to explain the prior filing restriction, his authority and standing to bring the claims, and inconsistencies in his fee-waiver applications; the case could be affected by a later denial of the application and recommendation of dismissal.
What happened
In Turner v. Athene, Terrance Turner filed a complaint and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court ordered him to explain why a prior federal-court filing restriction should not apply to this case.
The court also questioned whether Turner could bring claims based on alleged injuries to Anthony Biggins and Janet Menifee, rather than injuries he personally suffered. It further found inconsistencies in information Turner gave about his employment and income in this and other fee-waiver applications.
Judge Hixson ordered Turner to file a declaration by January 2, 2024. The order did not itself dismiss the case or deny the fee waiver; it stated that failure to provide a sufficient explanation and pay the filing fee could lead to denial of the application and a recommendation that the case be dismissed.
The detailed version
- Turner v. Athene · No. 5:23-cv-06369
- Thomas Hixson
- Dec. 18, 2023
Background
Terrance Turner, representing himself, filed a complaint against Athene and other defendants and applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court issued an order to show cause, meaning Turner was required to explain why the court should not take the actions described in the order.
Prior filing restriction
The court noted that the Northern District of Texas had previously barred Turner from filing future civil actions without paying the filing fee in that district or any other federal court unless he first obtained permission. Other federal district courts had dismissed cases after finding that Turner did not comply with that restriction.
The court ordered Turner to explain by January 2, 2024 why the restriction should not apply to this case. If he did not file a declaration, did not provide a sufficient explanation, and did not pay the filing fee, the court stated that it would recommend dismissal based on the restriction.
Real party in interest and standing
The court found that the complaint appeared to describe events involving Anthony Biggins and Janet Menifee rather than Turner. A person representing himself generally may prosecute only his own case and may not prosecute a case in federal court on behalf of other people. The court therefore stated that Turner had no authority to bring this case on behalf of Biggins and Menifee.
The court also stated that Turner appeared to lack standing, which is the legal requirement that a person suing in federal court show that he personally suffered an injury connected to the defendant’s conduct and likely capable of being remedied by a court decision. Because the alleged injuries were to Biggins and Menifee, the court ordered Turner to show cause by January 2, 2024 why the case should not be dismissed for lack of standing. If his declaration did not show that he had standing, the court stated that it would recommend dismissal.
Application to proceed without paying the filing fee
The court identified conflicting information in Turner’s applications in this and other cases. In the present case, Turner stated that he had been fired and had received no business, professional, or self-employment income during the prior 12 months. In other applications, he stated that clients paid him as much as $2,000 to file lawsuits and handle other matters, that he sometimes earned as much as $6,000 per month, or that he had obtained or expected to begin new employment.
The court stated that proceeding without paying the filing fee is a privilege rather than a right and that the information provided did not appear sufficient to establish eligibility. It ordered Turner to explain the discrepancies by January 2, 2024. If he did not provide a sufficient explanation and did not pay the filing fee, the court stated that it would deny the application and recommend dismissal.
Disposition
This document is an order to show cause, not a final dismissal or denial of the fee-waiver application. The court required Turner to respond by January 2, 2024 and described possible future actions if he failed to do so.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.