Opinion

Turner v. Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company

Court
District Court, N.D. California
Filed
Jan 16, 2024
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

1

2

3

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7 TERRANCE TURNER, Case No. 23-cv-04059-DMR

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

9 v.

Re: Dkt. No. 2

10 MASSACHUSETTS BAY INSURANCE

COMPANY, et al.,

11

Defendants.

12

13 Self-represented Plaintiff Terrance Turner filed 31 cases in this district between July 2023

14 and December 2023.1 Three of those cases, which were filed within a six-week period, are before

15

1 23-cv-03379-TLT, Turner v. Dinan Recruiting et al.

16

23-cv-03380-DMR, Turner v. Wholesale Payments et al.

23-cv-03381-WHA, Turner v. Valor Merchant Services Company

17

23-cv-03383-JSC, Turner v. Factwise Health et al.

23-cv-03384-CRB, Turner v. Logos Technologies et al.

18

23-cv-03385-JST, Turner v. Stripe Payments Company et al.

23-cv-03386-CRB, Turner v. Booze Allen Hamilton

19

23-cv-03387-TLT Turner v. USCENTCOM

23-cv-03542-MMC, Turner et al v. Argo Group et al.

20

23-cv-03543-AGT, Turner et al v. Salinas Valley Memorial Hospital et al.

23-cv-03544-CRB, Turner et al v. Rose, Klein & Marias et al.

21

23-cv-03689-DMR, Turner v. Los Angeles General Medical Center et al.

23-cv-03692-AGT, Turner v. Data Axle Genie et al.

22

23-cv-03701-HSG, Turner et al v. Lumio Home Services, LLC Lumio HX et al.

23-cv-03962-JSW, Turner et al v. Methodist Hospital et al.

23

23-cv-04021-LB, Turner et al v. Moreno et al.

23-cv-04059-DMR, Turner v. Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company et al.

24

23-cv-04060-TLT, Turner v. Golderg & Loren et al.

23-cv-04061-AGT, Turner v. Denovo Drilling

25

23-cv-04062-PHK, Turner v. Rimon Law et al.

23-cv-04518-PHK, Turner v. Federal Trade Commission et al.

26

23-cv-04520-SK, Turner v. Martindale-Nolo et al.

23-cv-04558-AGT, Turner v. Bristol Myers Squibb et al.

27

23-cv-04622-LB, Turner v. California Casualty Group

1 the undersigned. See Case Nos. 23-cv-3380 DMR; 23-cv-3689 DMR; and 23-cv-4059 DMR.

2 Turner filed applications to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in all three cases and declared

3 under penalty of perjury that the statements in his applications are true and correct.

4 The three IFP applications are confusing as well as inconsistent. For example:

5 • Turner filed the IFP application in Case No. 23-3380 DMR on July 20, 2023. [Docket

6 No. 5.] With respect to his last employment and wages, he explains that in his job with

7 Wipro, he made “5,000 a month” before he was fired in May. Id. at 1-2. In describing

8 sources of money he received in the past twelve months, he states “I’m aiming for

9 about 2,000 a month from legal clients, had one pay last week $500 trying to get more

10 legal clients specifically in Medical Malpractice, One Pay $500 last night.” Id. at 2.

11 • Four days later on July 24, 2023, Turner filed an IFP application in Case No. 23-3689.

12 [Docket No. 2.] This time, in answer to the question regarding his last employment

13 and wages, he doesn’t mention Wipro at all. Id. at 1-2. With respect to sources of

14 money, he answers “The plan is to use $300 to pay for cheap and possibly very

15 effective leads from a new company that I found that has an excess overflow pipeline

16 of leads that comes from Legal Shield – Pre Paid Legal, for people who want to talk to

17 someone who is NOT their assigned partner law firm. The leads are $5 USD per lead

18 and that is economical enough for me to get started.” Id. at 2.

19 • On August 10, 2023, Turner filed the IFP application in Case No. 23-4059. [Docket

20 No. 2.] In this application, he identifies Wipro as his last employer, and explains that

21 he was paid “$3,000 every two weeks and last pay was in April…” Id. at 2. With

22 respect to sources of money, he answers “This is a new client $500 for the initial

23 payment.” Id. at 2.

24 These responses are part of the troubling pattern of inconsistent and confusing IFP

25

26

23-cv-05950-SVK, Turner v. Division of Workers’ Compensation et al.

23-cv-06118-AGT, Turner v. Taboonsf, Inc et al.

27

23-cv-06368-SK, Turner v. Imprimus Label and Packaging, LLC

1 applications filed by Turner in this district. Judge Hixson described this pattern at length in his

2 Report and Recommendation in Turner v. Athene, No. 23-CV-06369-TSH, 2023 WL 8813518, at

3 *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2023), which was adopted by Judge Pitts on January 3, 2024 (see Docket

4 No. 13).

5 If the Court determines dismissal is not appropriate, the undersigned

finds his IFP application should be denied because the information he

6 provides in this and the other cases he has filed in this District is

inconsistent. In this case, Turner states he was previously “fired”

7 (without saying when) and that he has not received any business,

profession, or self employment income in the past 12 months.

8 However, in other cases filed this year, Turner states that clients pay

him up to $2,000 to file these lawsuits and for other matters. See, e.g.,

9 Turner v. Factwise Health et al., 23-cv-03383-JSC (7/6/23

application); Turner et al v. Methodist Hospital et al., 23-cv-03962-

10 JSW (8/7/23 application); Turner v. Federal Trade Commission et al.,

23-cv-04518-PHK (8/31/23 application); Turner v. Federal Trade

11 Commission, 23-cv-04518-PHK (8/31/23 application); Turner v.

Bristol Myers Squibb, 23-cv-04558-AGT (9/5/23 application); Turner

12 v. California Casualty Group, 23-cv-04622-LB (9/8/23 application).

Turner also contradicts himself within the applications, stating he

13 earned no income in the past 12 months but also stating he earned up

to $6,000 per month at times during the year. See, e.g., Turner v.

14 Keller Williams Realty, Inc., 23-cv-05533-KAW (10/27/23

application); Turner v. Mercury Group Corporation, 23-cv-05553-

15 KAW (10/27/23 application). In some applications, Turner states he

has not worked since May, but inothers he states he was still

16 employed after that time. See, e.g., Turner v. Dinan Recruiting, 23-

cv-03379-TLT (7/6/23 application); Turner v. USCENTCOM, 23-cv-

17 03381-WHA (7/6/23 application). Turner’s job history in the past

year is also unclear. For instance, on October 27 Turner filed an

18 application stating he “[j]ust got a new job with Go Velocity

Merchant Services, first day of work is Monday, next week, and

19 Wipro said they would hire me back as IT Project Manager for a New

Brunswick, NJ location, waiting for onboarding to start.” See Turner

20 v. Mercury Group Corporation et al., 23-cv-05553-KAW. However,

in an application filed two weeks later, Turner makes no mention of

21 either position, once again stating he is not employed and has earned

no income in the past 12 months. See Turner v. Workers

22 Compensation Appeals Board, 23-cv-05950-SVK.

23 See also Turner v. Valor Merchant Services Company, 23-cv-03381-WHA (“Based on the

24 information in the First and Second Applications, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to

25 establish that he qualifies for in forma pauperis status because his responses continue to be too

26 confusing and inconsistent to determine whether he is indigent.”); Turner v. USCENTCOM, 23-

27 cv-03387-TLT (same).

1 applications to determine whether he qualifies for IFP status in these three cases. Accordingly, by

2 no later than January 30, 2024, Turner shall show cause in writing why his IFP applications should

3 not be denied. Failure to respond by January 30, 2024 in each of the three cases before the

4 undersigned may result in denial of the IFP applications.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated: January 16, 2024

7

______________________________________

8 Donna M. Ryu

Chief Magistrate Judge

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.