Turner v. Stripe Payments Company et al

Filing 12

Order by Judge Jon S. Tigar adopting Report and Recommendations as to 8 Report and Recommendations..(mll, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/13/2023)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

TERRANCE TURNER,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 23-cv-03385-JST
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

v.
STRIPE PAYMENTS COMPANY, et al.,

Re: ECF No. 8

Defendants.

12
13

The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Alex Tse’s report and recommendation to

14

dismiss this action for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). ECF No. 8.

15

In his original complaint against Defendants, Plaintiff Terrance Turner alleged that

16

Defendants are “misusing data in violation of Computer Fraud and Abuse Case Act, Wire Fraud

17

Statutes, and other financial, consumer protection, privacy laws and legal statutes.” ECF No. 7 at

18

4. Judge Tse found that these allegations were legal conclusions “not entitled to the assumption of

19

truth.” ECF No. 6 at 1 (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 680 (2009)). In assessing

20

Turner’s amended complaint—which “add[ed] over a dozen criminal claims under Title 18 of the

21

United States Code,” as well as a “host of incomprehensible allegations”—Judge Tse reasoned

22

that Turner did not have “standing to enforce federal criminal laws.” ECF No. 8 at 1–2. Turner’s

23

Fourth Amendment claim was also dismissed, as the Fourth Amendment only protects “intrusions

24

by government actors, not private actors such as Stripe.” Id. at 2. Judge Tse concluded that

25

“[g]iven that Turner failed to cure the deficiencies previously identified by the Court, granting

26

further leave to amend would be futile.” Id. at 3.

27
28

Turner timely submitted objections to the order. ECF No. 10.1 The Court has reviewed

1
2

the amended complaint, Judge Tse’s recommendation, and Turner’s objections de novo. Turner’s

3

objections fail to address the deficiencies outlined by Judge Tse. Although Turner’s objections

4

raise seven new claims, the Court finds that each lacks merit. The new claims level general

5

criticisms at Defendants without coherently explaining the harm that Turner may have suffered.

6

Turner’s objections also consist largely of ranting and swearing.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Judge Tse’s report is well-reasoned, thorough, and adopts

7
8

it in full. Turner’s complaint is therefore dismissed with prejudice. The Court hereby enters

9

judgment against Turner. The Clerk of Court shall close the file in this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: November 13, 2023
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Turner submitted another set of objections on October 21, 2023—ten days after the deadline.
ECF No. 11. Because the second set of objections is both untimely and duplicative, the Court will
only consider the objections raised in ECF No. 10.
2