Opinion
Civil Action No. 20-23701-Civ-Scola
09-08-2020
Alex Anderson, Plaintiff, v. Unknown Deft '1', and others, Defendants.
Order Dismissing Case
This matter is before the Court on an independent review of the record. Plaintiff Alex Anderson, proceeding pro se, initiated this action on September 4, 2020, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that various unnamed employees of TD Bank violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (ECF No. 1 at 24.)
This case is essentially a dispute over the Plaintiff's dissatisfaction with TD Bank's customer service coupled with a billing discrepancy on the Plaintiff's account statements concerning less than $500. (Id. at 10, 16.) The Plaintiff claims that his constitutional rights were violated when he arrived at a TD Bank location in July 2020 and certain unnamed employees of TD Bank refused to issue him a replacement debit card without an appointment. In other words, he appears to claim that a private bank's no-walk-ins policy is unconstitutional. The Plaintiff also claims that either$411 or $415.22 has gone unaccounted for from his bank statements. Specifically, he alleges that TD Bank and accomplices "swindle[d]" this sum from him. (Id. at 16.) He further complains about the lack of progress in "a purported investigation" commenced by TD Bank into these matters. (Id. at 17.) Finally, as compensation for the purported wrongdoing, the Plaintiff demands $75,000 in compensation plus $10,000 in "court cost[s] and legal fees." (Id. at 27.) The latter request is particularly perplexing given that the Plaintiff has appeared pro se and he has a pending motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (i.e., without paying court costs).
The complaint provides no explanation for how any of the aforementioned conduct was unconstitutional. "Furthermore, a bank and its employees are not state actors" for purposes of § 1983. House v. Debbie, Case No. 3:09-CV-P938-H, 4 (W.D. Ky. Aug. 5, 2010); see also Hill v. Lee Cnty. Sheriff's Office, Case No. 2:11-cv-242, 13 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 24, 2012) ("Private banks (and their executives) are not "state actors.'"). In the alternative, the Plaintiff states that if the case does not set forth a constitutional violation (and it does not) "then might the case sufficiently implicate a violation of the (1964) Civil Rights Public Accommodation Act?!" (ECF No. 1 at 24 (punctuation in original).) The answer is no. And a complaint cannot invoke federal jurisdiction rhetorically; it must affirmatively and plausible allege its existence, which this complaint does not do.
Even absent these jurisdictional shortcomings, the Court would dismiss this frivolous action. "[D]istrict courts have the inherent power to sua sponte dismiss frivolous suits without giving notice to the parties." Davis v. Kvalheim, 261 F. App'x 231, 234-35 (11th Cir. 2008). Here, the complaint is "clearly baseless and without arguable merit in fact." Id. As a result, this case is dismissed under both the Court's inherent authority and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Id.
The Clerk is instructed to close this case and mail a copy of this order to the Plaintiff at the address listed below. All pending motions, if any, are denied as moot.
Done and ordered, in chambers, at Miami, Florida on September 8, 2020.
/s/_________
Robert N. Scola, Jr.
United States District Judge Copies to:
Alex Anderson
1603 NW 7th Ave
Miami, FL 33136