IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION TERRANCE TURNER, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. 5:26-cv-00167-TES BLOCK, INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
On May 1, 2026, Plaintiff Terrance Turner, proceeding pro se and on behalf of others, filed a complaint against the following four defendants: Block, Inc.; Cash App; Chime Financial, Inc.; and the Federal Trade Commission. [Doc. 1, p. 2]; [Doc. 1-1, p. 1]. Turner also listed seven other potential defendants—the Department of Homeland Security; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; the National Security Agency; the United States Special Operations Command; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Central Intelligence Agency; and the Secret Service—but he failed to provide addresses for any of them. [Doc. 1, p. 2]. Although he is not a licensed attorney, Turner once again appears to be suing on behalf of others, and as other district courts have noted, his filings are “nonsensical,” “irrational,” “illogical,” and “unintelligible.” [Doc. 1-1, p. 1]; In re Turner, No. 1:23-cv- 4996-MLB, 2024 WL 2406828, at *1 (N.D. Ga. May 6, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:23-cv-4996-MLB, 2024 WL 4005227 (N.D. Ga. July 11, 2024); see, e.g., Turner v. Food and Drug Admin., No. 3:23-cv-987 (consolidated), 2023 WL 4109782, at *1
(N.D. Tex. June 1, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 4109721 (N.D. Tex. June 21, 2023); Turner v. Athene, No. 23-cv-06369, 2023 WL 9595515, at *3 n.2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2023) (describing Turner’s lawsuits as “both delusional and deficient,” and
characterizing his extensive filing history as a “vexatious pattern and thus an abuse of the privilege of proceeding [in forma pauperis]”). While federal law permits Turner to represent himself, 28 U.S.C. § 1654, he cannot sue on behalf of others, and some courts
have even reported him for the unauthorized practice of law. See Turner v. Methodist Hosp., No. 8:23cv353, 2023 WL 6997025, at *3 (D. Neb. Oct. 24, 2023); Turner v. Eli Lily Co., et al., No. 3:23-cv-01722, ECF No. 3 at 3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2023). Additionally, on May 11, 2023, a district judge from the Northern District of
Texas, in summarily dismissing two of Turner’s lawsuits with prejudice as frivolous and malicious, barred Turner from filing further actions in forma pauperis in that court or “any other federal court, without first obtaining leave of court to do so.” See Turner v.
Trugreen Ltd. P’ship, No. 3:23-CV-989-G-BK (N.D. Tex. May 11, 2023), Dkt. No. 9; Turner v. LegalMatch, No. 3:23-CV-993-G-BK (N.D. Tex. May 11, 2023), Dkt. No. 10; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Turner was and remains enjoined by that bar order. See In re Turner, 2024 WL 2406828, at *2 (N.D. Ga. May 6, 2024). To be sure, this lawsuit isn’t
Turner’s first visit to the Middle District of Georgia either as he’s filed 17 cases from 2020 to 2023 and this one in 2026.1 “Since February 2020, Turner has filed over 150 lawsuits in more than a dozen different federal district courts across the country.” Id. at
*1. Further, the Northern District of Georgia has also recognized Turner’s extensive and vexatious filing history noting the Northern District of Texas’ nationwide filing injunction enjoining Turner from filing any in forma pauperis federal actions without first
obtaining leave of court. Id. at *2. Although Turner filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis along with his complaint and two “Motions to Form Leave” on May 1, 2026, and May 12, 2026,
respectively, in an effort to comply with the injunction against him, the Court will not allow him to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. [Doc. 2]; [Doc. 3]; [Doc. 4]. Despite Turner’s assertion of poverty under penalty of perjury in his application to proceed in forma pauperis, he clearly states, in this Motions to Form Leave, that he “can most
urgently pay the fee . . . because there is enough money to do so.” See [Doc. 2, p. 1], in connection with [Doc. 3, pp. 1–2]; [Doc. 4, pp. 1–2]. This statement—that “there is enough money” to pay the filing fee—contradicts Turner’s allegation of poverty, and that is
enough for the Court to immediately dismiss this lawsuit. [Doc. 3, pp. 1–2]; [Doc. 4, pp. 1–2]. Federal law states that courts “shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the allegation of poverty is untrue.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A) (emphasis added).
1 Turner’s cases can be found on PACER’s Case Locater, available at https://pcl.uscourts.gov/pcl/index.jsf. Notwithstanding the clear statutory authority for the Court to dismiss this case now, the Court will provide Turner 12 days to pay the filing fee he says he’s “ready to
pay.” [Doc. 3, p. 2]; [Doc. 4, p. 2]. The Court notes, however, that most of Turner’s claims in his complaint rely on various criminal statutes from Title 18 of the United States Code, and as he’s already been told, “private individuals lack standing to assert
claims for relief based on criminal statutes.” Turner v. Argo Grp., No. 23-cv-03542-TSH, 2023 WL 5279454, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2023); [Doc. 1, p. 3]. The other claims rely on the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTCA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 41–58, for which there is also
not a private right of action; two House Resolutions; and a breach-of-contract theory. [Doc. 1, p. 3]. The FTCA does not provide a private right of action and is only enforceable by the Federal Trade Commission. 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); Helms v. Consumerinfo.com, Inc., 436 F. Supp. 2d 1220, 1235 (N.D. Ala. 2005) (citing Red Diamond
Supply, Inc. v. Liquid Carbonic Corp., 637 F.2d 1001, 1008 n.13 (5th Cir. Feb. 23, 1981)).2 As this case appears to be yet another frivolous and delusional lawsuit from Turner, the Court DENIES his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and his
“Motions to Form Leave.” [Doc. 2]; [Doc. 3]; [Doc. 4]. Accordingly, IT IS SO ORDERED that Turner must pay the full filing fee of $405 by May 26, 2026, for this action to
2 The decisions handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981, by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the ‘former Fifth’ or the ‘old Fifth’) “shall be binding as precedent in the Eleventh Circuit” for the court of appeals, the district courts, and the bankruptcy courts. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981). proceed. See Fee Schedules, https://www.gamd.uscourts.gov/fee-schedules (last visited May 14, 2026); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (ultimately giving Turner until May 29, 2026,
to pay the full filing fee). Within 14 days of May 9, 2026, the Court ordered Turner “to file any orders from the Northern District of Texas or any other district in the United States concerning any
requirements and/or limitations on [his] ability to file suits in federal court without the prior approval of the Court or any other similar orders.” Text-Only Order, Turner v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION TERRANCE TURNER, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. 5:26-cv-00167-TES BLOCK, INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
On May 1, 2026, Plaintiff Terrance Turner, proceeding pro se and on behalf of others, filed a complaint against the following four defendants: Block, Inc.; Cash App; Chime Financial, Inc.; and the Federal Trade Commission. [Doc. 1, p. 2]; [Doc. 1-1, p. 1]. Turner also listed seven other potential defendants—the Department of Homeland Security; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; the National Security Agency; the United States Special Operations Command; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Central Intelligence Agency; and the Secret Service—but he failed to provide addresses for any of them. [Doc. 1, p. 2]. Although he is not a licensed attorney, Turner once again appears to be suing on behalf of others, and as other district courts have noted, his filings are “nonsensical,” “irrational,” “illogical,” and “unintelligible.” [Doc. 1-1, p. 1]; In re Turner, No. 1:23-cv- 4996-MLB, 2024 WL 2406828, at *1 (N.D. Ga. May 6, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:23-cv-4996-MLB, 2024 WL 4005227 (N.D. Ga. July 11, 2024); see, e.g., Turner v. Food and Drug Admin., No. 3:23-cv-987 (consolidated), 2023 WL 4109782, at *1
(N.D. Tex. June 1, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 4109721 (N.D. Tex. June 21, 2023); Turner v. Athene, No. 23-cv-06369, 2023 WL 9595515, at *3 n.2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2023) (describing Turner’s lawsuits as “both delusional and deficient,” and
characterizing his extensive filing history as a “vexatious pattern and thus an abuse of the privilege of proceeding [in forma pauperis]”). While federal law permits Turner to represent himself, 28 U.S.C. § 1654, he cannot sue on behalf of others, and some courts
have even reported him for the unauthorized practice of law. See Turner v. Methodist Hosp., No. 8:23cv353, 2023 WL 6997025, at *3 (D. Neb. Oct. 24, 2023); Turner v. Eli Lily Co., et al., No. 3:23-cv-01722, ECF No. 3 at 3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2023). Additionally, on May 11, 2023, a district judge from the Northern District of
Texas, in summarily dismissing two of Turner’s lawsuits with prejudice as frivolous and malicious, barred Turner from filing further actions in forma pauperis in that court or “any other federal court, without first obtaining leave of court to do so.” See Turner v.
Trugreen Ltd. P’ship, No. 3:23-CV-989-G-BK (N.D. Tex. May 11, 2023), Dkt. No. 9; Turner v. LegalMatch, No. 3:23-CV-993-G-BK (N.D. Tex. May 11, 2023), Dkt. No. 10; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Turner was and remains enjoined by that bar order. See In re Turner, 2024 WL 2406828, at *2 (N.D. Ga. May 6, 2024). To be sure, this lawsuit isn’t
Turner’s first visit to the Middle District of Georgia either as he’s filed 17 cases from 2020 to 2023 and this one in 2026.1 “Since February 2020, Turner has filed over 150 lawsuits in more than a dozen different federal district courts across the country.” Id. at
*1. Further, the Northern District of Georgia has also recognized Turner’s extensive and vexatious filing history noting the Northern District of Texas’ nationwide filing injunction enjoining Turner from filing any in forma pauperis federal actions without first
obtaining leave of court. Id. at *2. Although Turner filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis along with his complaint and two “Motions to Form Leave” on May 1, 2026, and May 12, 2026,
respectively, in an effort to comply with the injunction against him, the Court will not allow him to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. [Doc. 2]; [Doc. 3]; [Doc. 4]. Despite Turner’s assertion of poverty under penalty of perjury in his application to proceed in forma pauperis, he clearly states, in this Motions to Form Leave, that he “can most
urgently pay the fee . . . because there is enough money to do so.” See [Doc. 2, p. 1], in connection with [Doc. 3, pp. 1–2]; [Doc. 4, pp. 1–2]. This statement—that “there is enough money” to pay the filing fee—contradicts Turner’s allegation of poverty, and that is
enough for the Court to immediately dismiss this lawsuit. [Doc. 3, pp. 1–2]; [Doc. 4, pp. 1–2]. Federal law states that courts “shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the allegation of poverty is untrue.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A) (emphasis added).
1 Turner’s cases can be found on PACER’s Case Locater, available at https://pcl.uscourts.gov/pcl/index.jsf. Notwithstanding the clear statutory authority for the Court to dismiss this case now, the Court will provide Turner 12 days to pay the filing fee he says he’s “ready to
pay.” [Doc. 3, p. 2]; [Doc. 4, p. 2]. The Court notes, however, that most of Turner’s claims in his complaint rely on various criminal statutes from Title 18 of the United States Code, and as he’s already been told, “private individuals lack standing to assert
claims for relief based on criminal statutes.” Turner v. Argo Grp., No. 23-cv-03542-TSH, 2023 WL 5279454, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2023); [Doc. 1, p. 3]. The other claims rely on the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTCA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 41–58, for which there is also
not a private right of action; two House Resolutions; and a breach-of-contract theory. [Doc. 1, p. 3]. The FTCA does not provide a private right of action and is only enforceable by the Federal Trade Commission. 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); Helms v. Consumerinfo.com, Inc., 436 F. Supp. 2d 1220, 1235 (N.D. Ala. 2005) (citing Red Diamond
Supply, Inc. v. Liquid Carbonic Corp., 637 F.2d 1001, 1008 n.13 (5th Cir. Feb. 23, 1981)).2 As this case appears to be yet another frivolous and delusional lawsuit from Turner, the Court DENIES his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and his
“Motions to Form Leave.” [Doc. 2]; [Doc. 3]; [Doc. 4]. Accordingly, IT IS SO ORDERED that Turner must pay the full filing fee of $405 by May 26, 2026, for this action to
2 The decisions handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981, by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the ‘former Fifth’ or the ‘old Fifth’) “shall be binding as precedent in the Eleventh Circuit” for the court of appeals, the district courts, and the bankruptcy courts. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981). proceed. See Fee Schedules, https://www.gamd.uscourts.gov/fee-schedules (last visited May 14, 2026); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (ultimately giving Turner until May 29, 2026,
to pay the full filing fee). Within 14 days of May 9, 2026, the Court ordered Turner “to file any orders from the Northern District of Texas or any other district in the United States concerning any
requirements and/or limitations on [his] ability to file suits in federal court without the prior approval of the Court or any other similar orders.” Text-Only Order, Turner v. Block, Inc., No. 5:26-cv-00167-TES (M.D. Ga. May 9, 2026). Despite the Court denying
Turner leave to proceed in forma pauperis as set out above, Turner must still comply with the Court’s order from May 9, 2026, within the time ordered by the Court—by May 26, 2026. See id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C) & 6(a)(6)(A), in connection with Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (ultimately giving Turner until May 29, 2026, to comply with the Court’s order
from May 9, 2026). Failure to comply with that order and pay the filing fee within the time ordered— ultimately by May 29, 2026—will result in immediate dismissal of Turner’s complaint
for failure to obey a court order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep’t, 205 F. App’x 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (first citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); and then citing Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978)) (“The [C]ourt may dismiss an
action sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for . . . failure to obey a court order.”). SO ORDERED, this 14th day of May, 2026. S/ Tilman E. Self, III TILMAN E. SELF, III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE