Opinion
3:22-CV-1013-DRL-MGG
07-17-2023
CLIFTON CRAIG, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT d'ARCY, COMERICA BANK, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Damon R. Leichty, Judge, United States District Court.
Clifton Craig, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed an amended complaint alleging the Internal Revenue Service improperly direct deposited three COVID-19 Stimulus Payments totaling $3,200 into Comercia Bank. ECF 6. “A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotations and citations omitted). Nevertheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
When the court screened the original complaint, it found it did not state a claim against either of the two defendants. See ECF 4. In the amended complaint, Mr. Craig again sues the same two defendants.
The first defendant is Robert d'Arcy, an employee of the Internal Revenue Service. He signed a letter explaining when and where the payments were deposited. The amended complaint does not allege he did anything else. These are the same allegations made in the original complaint. As previously explained, the “complaint does not allege Mr. d'Arcy was involved with issuing the refund nor deciding where it should be sent. It does not explain how or why he is financially liable to Mr. Craig.” ECF 4 at 1-2. It is not plausible to infer that Mr. d'Arcy personally decided where to send the payment. The amended complaint does not state a claim against Mr. d'Arcy.
The second defendant is Comerica Bank, the financial institution into which the payments were direct deposited. The amended complaint does not allege it did anything else. As previously noted, Mr. Craig “does not say whether the account ending 701 at Comercia Bank is or was his [and i]f that is his account, he does not explain why he did not withdraw the money from his account rather than filing this lawsuit.” ECF 4 at 1. The amended complaint does not state a claim against Comerica Bank.
Mr. Craig's original complaint did not state a claim. He was granted leave to file an amended complaint because “[t]he usual standard in civil cases is to allow defective pleadings to be corrected, especially in early stages, at least where amendment would not be futile.” Abu-Shawish v. United States, 898 F.3d 726, 738 (7th Cir. 2018). He filed an amended complaint, but it does not state a claim either.
For these reasons, this case is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
SO ORDERED.