1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TERRENCE TURNER, Case No.: 23cv1721-JES (DEB)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) DISMISSING COMPLAINT 14 GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS, PURSUANT TO SCREENING INC.; EVERNORTH HEALTH, INC. & 15 UNDER

(e); and EXPRESS SCRIPTS; and KAISER

16 PERMANENTE MEDICAL FACILITY, (2) DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE 17 Defendants. TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 18

19 [ECF No. 2]

20

21 On September 14, 2023, Plaintiff Terrence Turner filed the instant action and filed 22 a concurrent motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF Nos. 1, 2. After due 23 consideration and for the reasons set forth below, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s 24 complaint under

(e) and DENIES the motion to proceed IFP. 25 I. BACKGROUND 26 Plaintiff Turner alleges to bring this lawsuit on behalf of a victim, Jaren Jones 27 (“Jones”), who resides in San Diego. ECF No. 1 at 2. He alleges that Jones suffers from 28 1 random and reoccurring seizures, and has been taking a drug named “Zonisamide” to 2 manage the seizures.

After a few weeks of using the drug, he alleges that Jones 3 suffered side effects from the drug that were atypical and severe.

Upon telling medical 4 staff about the issues, he alleges that Jones was only prescribed a higher dose of the 5 medication and the staff did nothing else to try to resolve the issues.

He alleges that 6 the drug is unsafe due to the severe side effects.

. Based on these factual 7 allegations, Plaintiff Turner asserts violations of various federal statutes.

. 8 II. Screening under

(a) 9 A complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of

(a), is subject 10 to a mandatory and sua sponte review by the Court. Lopez v. Smith,

, 1127 11 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court must dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous or malicious, fails 12 to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a 13 defendant immune from such relief.

(e)(2)(B). To pass screening, all 14 complaints must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 15 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 16 Standing to sue is a jurisdictional requirement, and a party invoking federal 17 jurisdiction has the burden of establishing it. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,

555, 561 (1992); see also Warth v. Seldin,

(1975) (standing is a 19 “threshold question in every federal case”). Jurisdictional defects, including standing, 20 must be raised by courts sua sponte. B.C. v. Plumas Unified Sch. Dist.,

, 21 1264 (9th Cir. 1999). To show that a party has standing, he must establish that: (1) he 22 suffered an “injury in fact;” (2) there is causal connection between the injury and the 23 allegedly wrongful conduct; and (3) the injury would likely be redressed by a favorable 24 decision. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61. 25 Here, the entirety of Turner’s complaint is centered around an injury that was not 26 suffered by him, but rather by another individual, Jones. A party generally has no 27 standing to sue for an injury suffered by another. Cf. Warth,

(“Petitioners 28 must allege and show that they personally have been injured, not that injury has been 1 || suffered by other, unidentified members . .. which they purport to represent.”). Turner 2 || puts forth no other theories that might support third party standing. Thus, he fails to meet 3 burden under Lujan and has not shown that he has standing to sue for the allegations 4 the complaint. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the complaint without prejudice 5 || pursuant to § 1915(e). 6 III. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 7 Plaintiff Turner has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). ECF 8 || No. 2. However, the financial information therein is all based on Turner’s finances and as 9 || discussed above, he does not have standing to sue based on the complaint. Thus, the 10 ||Court DENIES the motion to proceed IFP at this time. 11 IV. CONCLUSION 12 For the reasons discussed above, the Court DISMISSES the complaint pursuant to

for lack of standing and DENIES the motion to proceed IFP. The Clerk 14 directed to close the case. 15 Plaintiff may reopen this case by filing an amended complaint if he can cure the 16 defects in the complaint within 30 days of this order. An amended complaint must be 17 ||accompanied by payment of the filing fee or a renewed motion to proceed IFP. If Plaintiff 18 || fails to comply with these instructions, this case will remain dismissed and closed without 19 || further action from the Court. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 0 Dated: September 22, 2023 “| ie SF amecae ot 23 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. United States District Judge 25 26 27 28