Turner v. Mercury Group Corporation

Background

Terrance Turner, representing himself, filed a complaint and an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court reviewed both filings and issued an order requiring him to explain why the case should not be dismissed and why his fee-waiver application should not be denied.

Standing and real party in interest

The court said the complaint appeared to concern a motor-vehicle collision involving Raymond Medina and “Daughter Medina,” allegedly caused by a “Mercury Insurance” driver. Turner’s allegations stated that he was connected to various organizations and activities, but the court said the complaint’s alleged events and injuries happened to the Medinas rather than to Turner.

A person generally has legal standing only when that person alleges a personal injury caused by the defendant that a court decision could likely remedy. The court also explained that a person representing himself may prosecute only his own case and may not bring claims in federal court for other people. Based on the complaint, the court concluded that Turner did not have standing and had no authority to prosecute the case on behalf of Raymond Medina and “Daughter Medina.”

The court ordered Turner to file a declaration by February 16, 2024, explaining why he had standing. It stated that if he did not file a declaration, or if his declaration did not provide a sufficient reason why he had standing, the case would be reassigned to a district judge with a recommendation that it be dismissed with prejudice for lack of standing.

Fee-waiver application

The court also reviewed Turner’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee. It identified an inconsistency within the application: Turner stated that he had earned no income during the prior 12 months while also stating that he had earned as much as $6,000 per month at times during the prior year. The court also referred to inconsistencies identified in another recent fee-waiver application filed by Turner.

The court ordered Turner to show cause by March 15, 2024, why the fee-waiver application should not be denied based on those inconsistencies. It warned that if Turner did not timely explain the inconsistencies or pay the filing fee, the court would deny the fee-waiver application and reassign the case to a district judge with a recommendation that the case be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee.

Disposition

This order did not itself dismiss the case or deny the fee-waiver application. It issued two orders to show cause and set deadlines for Turner to respond. The order was signed by Kandis A. Westmore, United States Magistrate Judge.