Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00268/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00268-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

- 1 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID BRYAN TURNER, JR.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.

Defendants.

CASE NO. 19cv268-LAB (BLM)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff David Turner brings this suit against a series of unrelated defendants 

alleging that each of them violated his constitutional rights. As best the Court can discern, 

Turner’s complaint makes the following allegations:

 On an unspecified date, San Diego Metropolitan Transit System officers 

issued Turner a citation for failing to pay a trolley fare. When he was 

unable to sign the citation due to a broken hand, the MTS officers told 

him he was going to jail. San Diego County Sheriff’s deputies placed 

him in overly tight hand cuffs, “slammed” his face, and re-broke his hand.

 One week after the MTS encounter, Turner was stopped and arrested 

by the Harbor Police. The officers took him to the hospital for treatment, 

but did so (again) in overly tight hand cuffs. Once Turner arrived at the 

hospital, the “police pulled [his] pants down[,] grabbed his ass, and stuck 

something into his buttocks.” Turner was transferred to the San Diego 

Central Jail, where he was sexually abused.

 On an unspecified date, El Cajon police arrested Turner, placed him in 

overly tight hand cuffs, and seized his bag. Once in jail, the officials 

Case 3:19-cv-00268-LAB-BLM Document 3 Filed 03/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

failed to give him a property slip for the bag, which resulted in the loss 

of his personal property. 

 On a separate occasion, El Cajon police assaulted Turner at a 7/11 

store.

 On an unspecified date, he was subjected to excessive force by 

“Food4Less” and the “Euclid Ave. Police.” No additional details are 

provided.

In addition to straining credibility, Turner’s claims violate the FRCP’s prohibition 

against joining unrelated claims and defendants in the same suit. While a plaintiff may 

join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant, unrelated claims against 

different defendants must be pursued in separate lawsuits. See George v. Smith, 507 

F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in 

different suits.”). Turner’s complaint runs afoul of this rule by alleging a series of 

implausible constitutional violations against unrelated entities: the MTS, the San Diego 

County Sheriff, the Harbor Police, the El Cajon Police Department, Food4Less, and 

others. 

Because Turner has moved to proceed IFP, the Court is required to screen and 

dismiss his complaint to the extent it is “frivolous or malicious” or “fails to state a claim on 

which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Each of Turner’s claims lacks basic 

details that would allow the Court to determine whether it is plausible. For instance, 

Turner does not provide the dates on which any of the alleged violations took place or the 

names of any of the officers involved. The allegations are also internally inconsistent—

Turner states that he is indigent and has moved to proceed IFP, but yet alleges that the 

reason he failed to pay the trolley fare was because “someone had taken $900,000 out 

of his [bank] account.” Complaint, Dkt. 1, at 3. In short, despite naming numerous 

defendants, Turner has failed to plausibly plead a constitutional violation against any of 

them. 

Turner’s complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. He may file an 

amended complaint, but must limit the claims in his amended complaint to a single 

Case 3:19-cv-00268-LAB-BLM Document 3 Filed 03/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

incident and/or a single defendant. If he chooses to amend, he must do so no later than 

March 26, 2019 and must provide additional facts to support whichever claim he chooses 

to pursue. For starters, he should specify the date on which the incident occurred, the 

location of the incident, the names of the officers involved, and any other pertinent details. 

If he cannot provide these basic facts supporting his claim, he should not amend. If he 

chooses to amend, he should also explain in detail his allegation that someone took 

“$900,000 out of his [bank] account.” The Court defers ruling on Turner’s motion to 

proceed IFP, (Dkt. 2), pending a more complete explanation of this incident and his 

financial situation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2019

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-00268-LAB-BLM Document 3 Filed 03/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3