1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 || TERRANCE TURNER, Case No.: 3:23-CV-1728-JO-AHG 10 Plaintiff, ORDER: vy. (1) DISMISSING COMPLAINT 2 lkaweninearraeica, | PURSUANT TOSCREENTNG 13 ||] CENTER, KAWEAH MENTAL ’ 14 || HOSPITAL, (2) DENYING MOTION FOR 5 Defendants. LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 16 17 On September 14, 2023, Terrance Turner (“Turner”) filed a lawsuit and a motion to 18 || proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP’’) on behalf of another individual, Day Spencer. On behalf 19 Spencer, Turner alleges that Defendants kidnapped and drugged Spencer’s child in 20 || violation of federal criminal kidnapping laws and medical privacy statutes. Dkt. 1 at 2-4. 21 || Although Turner filed this case as the plaintiff, he was not involved in the facts of the case, 22 he did not suffer the injuries alleged in the complaint. See generally id. Nor is Turner 23 ||a licensed attorney. For the reasons stated below, the Court DISMISSES Turner’s 24 |} complaint under

with prejudice and DENIES his motion to proceed IFP 25 moot. 26 I. SCREENING UNDER

27 A complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of

(a) is subject to 28 ||a mandatory and sua sponte review by the Court. Lopez v. Smith,

, 1127

1 |) (9th Cir. 2000). The Court must dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to 2 a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant 3 ||/immune from such relief.

(e)(2)(B). To pass screening, all complaints 4 || must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled 5 ||to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has 6 || failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B) is the same 7 |jas the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a 8 |lclaim.” Watison v. Carter,

(9th Cir. 2012); see also Barren v. 9 || Harrington,

(9th Cir. 1998) (noting that “[t]he language of § 10 1915(e)(2)(B)Gi) parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 |} 12(b)(6).”). Rule 12(b)(6) requires that a complaint “contain sufficient factual matter, 12 || accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Detailed factual allegations 14 || are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported 15 || by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”

. 16 Upon screening, the Court finds that Plaintiffs claims fail as a matter of law because 17 ||Turner did not suffer the injuries alleged in his complaint. A plaintiff only has legal 18 || standing to sue when they have suffered harm from the defendant’s alleged wrongful 19 ||conduct. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,

(1992). Specifically, in order 20 || to have standing, a party must establish that: (1) it suffered an “injury in fact;” (2) there is 21 causal connection between the injury and the allegedly wrongful conduct; and (3) the 22 ||injury would likely be redressed by a favorable decision. Jd. at 560-61. Because standing 23 a jurisdictional requirement, courts should sua sponte examine whether plaintiffs have 24 ||met their burden of establishing standing. Bernhardt v. Cnty. of Los Angeles,

|| 862, 868 (9th Cir. 2002); Lujan,

(“[T]he party invoking federal jurisdiction 26 ||has the burden of establishing [standing].”). 27 Here, Turner’s complaint rests entirely on events that occurred to someone other 28 |{than himself. Turner alleges that an individual named Day Spencer suffered harm

1 || because a hospital kidnapped and forcibly medicated her son and refused to release 2 information regarding her son’s medical treatment. Dkt. 1 at 2-3. A review of the 3 ||complaint and the accompanying IFP motion reveals that Turner had no relationship with 4 || Day Spencer or her child, and that he was not involved in the facts alleged in this case. 5 || See generally Dkt. 1. Instead, it appears that Turner is representing Day Spencer in this 6 || lawsuit for financial remuneration, despite the fact that he is not a licensed attorney. He 7 ||says as much in his IFP request, noting that he is “hustling legal services at a modicum 8 || price just to pay the rent.” Dkt. 2 at 2. His court filings indicate no bar number! or 9 |) affiliation with a law office. Because Turner is not the one who suffered the injury, he 10 || does not have standing to pursue this action. See Warth v. Seldin,

, 502 11 ||(1975) (“Petitioners must allege and show that they personally have been injured, not that 12 |/injury has been suffered by other, unidentified members . . . which they purport to 13 ||represent.”). Moreover, it appears that Turner is engaged in the unlicensed practice of 14 Accordingly, the Court dismisses the complaint pursuant to § 1915(e). 15 Il. CONCLUSION 16 Because amendment could not cure the fact that Turner is not the individual who 17 || suffered the injury in this case, the Court DISMISSES this complaint pursuant to 28 18 || U.S.C. § 1915 with prejudice. Chaset v. Fleer/Skybox Int'l, LP,

, 1088 (9th 19 || Cir. 2002) (stating that dismissal with prejudice is warranted where amendment would be 20 || futile because the flaws in the claims cannot be cured). The Court also DENIES his 21 motion to proceed IFP as moot because it has dismissed Turner’s case with prejudice. 22 ||(This dismissal with prejudice applies only to the complaint filed by Turner; it does not 23 foreclose Day Spencer and/or her child from refiling this action in their own right either 24 || pro se or represented by a licensed attorney.) The Clerk is directed to close this case. 25 26 27 28 Because Turner listed a Virginia address in the Complaint, the Court ran its own search of both the Virginia and California Bar websites and found no record of an attorney named Terrance Turner.

1 Moreover, as it appears that Turner is engaged in the unlicensed practice of law, 2 ||the Court orders the Clerk to report this matter and send a copy of this order to both the 3 California State Bar and the Virginia State Bar. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 October 17, 2023 □□ 7 8 Ho Li Ohta 9 United States District Judge