Turner v. Wholesale Payments
- Charles Breyer
- 3:23-cv-03380
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Turner v. Wholesale Payments, Judge Breyer ordered Turner to explain by January 30, 2024 why his fee-waiver applications should not be denied.
Terrance Turner, whose applications to proceed without paying court fees in three cases were subject to the order; the underlying defendants were not affected by a merits ruling in this order.
What happened
In Terrance Turner v. Wholesale Payments, self-represented plaintiff Terrance Turner had filed 31 cases in the district between July and December 2023. Three cases, including this one, were before the same judge, and Turner asked to proceed without paying court fees in each.
The court found that Turner’s fee-waiver applications were confusing and inconsistent. They differed about his employment, wages, income, and money received from legal clients. The court said it could not determine from the information whether Turner qualified for the fee waiver.
The court ordered Turner to explain in writing by January 30, 2024 why his applications should not be denied. Judge Charles Breyer warned that failing to respond in each of the three cases could result in denial of the applications. The order did not decide the underlying claims against Wholesale Payments.
The detailed version
- Turner v. Wholesale Payments · No. 3:23-cv-03380
- Charles Breyer
- Jan. 16, 2024
Background
Self-represented plaintiff Terrance Turner filed 31 cases in the district between July and December 2023. Three cases filed within a six-week period were before the same judge, including this case, 23-cv-03380-DMR. Turner filed applications to proceed without paying court fees in all three cases and declared under penalty of perjury that the information was true and correct.
The applications
The court described the applications as confusing and inconsistent. In this case, Turner stated that he had worked for Wipro, had been fired, and had not received business, professional, or self-employment income during the previous 12 months. In other applications, however, he gave different information about Wipro, his wages, employment, legal-client payments, and other income. The court also cited applications in which Turner both reported no income and reported earning as much as $6,000 per month, or described employment that he did not mention in later applications.
Order
The court stated that it was unable to evaluate Turner’s requests to proceed without paying court fees based on the information provided. It ordered Turner to show cause in writing, no later than January 30, 2024, why the applications should not be denied. The court warned that failing to respond by that date in each of the three cases before the judge could result in denial of the applications. This was an order to show cause, not a ruling on the underlying claims against Wholesale Payments, and the opinion does not state that the applications were ultimately denied.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.