Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04697/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04697-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY R. TURNER, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT,

Defendants. __________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 15-4697 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL;

DENYING MOTION FOR

INTERVENTION

(Dkt. 7)

INTRODUCTION

Anthony R. Turner, a prisoner of the State of California, filed this pro se civil

complaint. For the reasons discussed below, the complaint is dismissed. He has been

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

28 U.S.C. 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and

dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not

Case 4:15-cv-04697-JSW Document 9 Filed 11/23/15 Page 1 of 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

necessary; the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim

is and the grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200

(2007) (citations omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need

detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his

'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic

recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must

be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer

"enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 1974. Pro se

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696,

699 (9th Cir. 1990).

LEGAL CLAIMS

Plaintiff alleges that the Superior Court of Yolo County imposed a fine as part of

his criminal proceedings, that he was not aware of that fine, and that the Superior Court

then imposed a lien on his real property. Plaintiff seeks a “writ of replevin” restoring the

real property to him, a “release” of the lien, and his own release from prison. Plaintiff has

not alleged any basis for this Court’s jurisdiction over this case, however. He does not

assert any violation of federal law, and his allegations do not raise a federal question. See

28 U.S.C. § 1331. In addition, as Defendant and Plaintiff are both located in California,

there is no diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. To the extent Plaintiff believes

that the fine and/or lien violate state law, he may bring an action in state court. To the

extent he seeks release from custody, he must do so in a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus after he has exhausted his claims in the California Supreme Court. See Skinner v.

Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2011) (habeas is the “exclusive remedy” for the prisoner

who seeks “immediate or speedier release” from confinement). Plaintiff should be aware

that while he may challenge his custody in a habeas petition, he may not challenge the

imposition of a fine. See Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Plaintiff has also filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. District courts

Case 4:15-cv-04697-JSW Document 9 Filed 11/23/15 Page 2 of 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

may not entertain a petition for the writ with respect to challenges to collateral

consequences of state court convictions such as Plaintiff’s claims here. Sinclair v.

Louisiana, 679 F.2d 513, 513-15 (5th Cir. 1982).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set out above, this action is DISMISSED. 

The Clerk shall close the file and enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 23, 2015 

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-04697-JSW Document 9 Filed 11/23/15 Page 3 of 3