Scott Robinson v. Consumer Financial Protection, et al

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: SHWARTZ, COWEN and FUENTES, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 3.

Case: 17-1458

Document: 003112629671

Page: 1

Date Filed: 05/22/2017

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 17-1458
___________
SCOTT E. ROBINSON,
Appellant
v.
CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU; and
Sen. ELIZABETH WARREN
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(M.D. Pa. No. 1-16-cv-02183)
District Judge: Honorable William W. Caldwell
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 19, 2017
Before: SHWARTZ, COWEN and FUENTES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 22, 2017)
___________
OPINION*
___________
PER CURIAM
Scott Robinson filed this lawsuit in October 2016, against the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (“the CFPB”) and Senator Elizabeth Warren. The precise factual and
*

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

Case: 17-1458

Document: 003112629671

Page: 2

Date Filed: 05/22/2017

legal bases of Robinson’s claims are not easy to discern. According to documents
attached to the complaint, it appears that Robinson’s intended narrative begins with his
receipt of direct mail marketing from Wells Fargo indicating eligibility to obtain certain
mortgage products.
Apparently, in or around May 2016, Robinson applied to refinance the mortgage
on his investment property in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Robinson’s loan application was
conditionally approved and, by September 2, 2016, it was at the desk of a Wells Fargo
underwriter for final review. His refinance prospects allegedly soured, however, when
later that month Senator Warren began “attacking” Wells Fargo “in public hearings
before Congress.” Contemporaneous with those hearings, Wells Fargo denied
Robinson’s loan application. The bank explained to Robinson that, pursuant to federal
regulations (allegedly implemented by the CFPB), Robinson’s “proportion of the
settlement costs to the size of [his] particular loan . . . was too high.” Robinson claimed
that the conduct of the CFPB and of Senator Warren unlawfully prompted Wells Fargo’s
loan decision, in violation of the Declaration of Independence as well as unspecified parts
of the U.S. Constitution. Robinson sought damages in excess of $600,000.
A Magistrate Judge granted Robinson’s application to proceed in forma pauperis,
based on Robinson’s sworn averments that he had no assets and a multitude of debts.
The Magistrate Judge then screened Robinson’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
After a thorough review of federal pleading standards, the Magistrate Judge
determined that Robinson’s complaint failed to state a viable claim. Specifically, the
Magistrate Judge determined that the complaint was defective because, among other
2

Case: 17-1458

Document: 003112629671

Page: 3

Date Filed: 05/22/2017

things: (1) it “set forth no well-pleaded, or intelligible, factual narrative thread giving
rise to civil liability [for] either Senator Warren or the [CFPB]”; (2) insofar as Robinson
sought to bring a Bivens action against the CFPB, the agency was entitled to sovereign
immunity; (3) Senator Warren was entitled to legislative immunity because her allegedly
unconstitutional conduct consisted of remarks during a Congressional hearing; and (4)
there is no private right of action to enforce the Declaration of Independence. The
Magistrate Judge determined that leave to amend would be futile because “the structural
flaws in this complaint are beyond any form of repair.” The Magistrate Judge thus
recommended dismissal of the complaint with prejudice. Over Robinson’s objections,
the District Court agreed with that recommended disposition. This appeal followed.1
On appeal, Robinson filed a two-page “informal brief/ motion to update court.”
Pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, but nowhere in Robinson’s brief does he
explain how, if at all, the District Court erred. Regardless, the District Court correctly
determined that Robinson’s complaint failed to state a claim, for substantially the reasons
given by the Magistrate Judge in his report. In addition, the District Court’s refusal to
grant leave to amend, on futility grounds, was not an abuse of discretion. Cf. Great W.
Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 175 (3d Cir. 2010).
Therefore, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

1

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Sua sponte dismissals for failure to state
a claim are reviewed de novo. See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000).
3