Kenneth White v. US Bank, et al

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: SHWARTZ, RENDELL and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 3. CLD-325

Case: 17-2169

Document: 003112698371

Page: 1

CLD-325

Date Filed: 08/10/2017

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 17-2169
___________
KENNETH WHITE,
Appellant
v.
U.S. BANK, Ex. Off.; RICHARD K. DAVIS
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.N.J. No. 1-16-cv-05879)
District Judge: Honorable Renee M. Bumb
____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
August 3, 2017
Before: SHWARTZ, RENDELL and FISHER, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: August 10, 2017)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM

*

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

Case: 17-2169

Document: 003112698371

Page: 2

Date Filed: 08/10/2017

Kenneth White appeals pro se from the District Court’s award of summary
judgment. We will summarily affirm.
I.
In 2016, White initiated this action in New Jersey state court against U.S. Bank
and one of its officers (Richard Davis), alleging that they violated his rights “under the
Constitutions of New Jersey, Minnesota, and the United States to be secure in his person,
houses, papers, and effects” by confiscating more than $200,000 from his business
banking accounts in August 2009.1 Defendants removed the action to the District Court,2
and several months later moved for summary judgment. The District Court granted this
motion, treating White’s claim as “one of conversion under both New Jersey and
Minnesota Law,” and concluding that it was time barred by applicable six-year statutes of
limitations. This timely appeal ensued.
II.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise plenary review over the
District Court’s award of summary judgment. Giles v. Kearney, 571 F.3d 318, 322 (3d
Cir. 2009). We may summarily affirm the District Court where “it clearly appears that

1

These funds turned out to be the proceeds of fraudulent tax returns, and U.S. Bank
eventually returned them to the IRS.
2
When White filed this action, he was incarcerated in New Jersey, serving a lengthy
federal sentence for fraud-related charges. The District Court determined him to be a
resident of Ohio, his pre-incarceration domicile. U.S. Bank and Davis claimed to be
residents of Minnesota.
2

Case: 17-2169

Document: 003112698371

Page: 3

Date Filed: 08/10/2017

no substantial question is presented or that subsequent precedent or a change in
circumstances warrants such action.” 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6 (2015).
We detect no error in the District Court’s treatment of White’s claim as “one of
conversion,” and agree that it is time-barred by the six-year statutes of limitations that
govern such claims in both New Jersey and Minnesota. See N.J. Stat. 2A:14-1; Minn.
Stat. § 541.05(4). White alleged that Defendants “confiscated” his funds in August 2009,
but did not file this action until July 2016, nearly seven years later.3 And he did not
suggest—either in the District Court or this Court—that the statute should have been
tolled for any reason. Indeed, the District Court acknowledged that he could “seek to
present evidence [of] tolling” in a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion, but he
declined to do so. Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the judgment of the District
Court.

3

Although White appeared to assert constitutional claims, these claims would also be
time-barred (state-action problems aside). See Heyert v. Taddese, 70 A.3d 680, 708 (N.J.
Super. Ct. App. Div. 2013) (two-year statute of limitations for § 1983 claims); Zweber v.
Credit River Twp., 882 N.W.2d 605, 608 n.1 (Minn. 2016) (six-year statute of limitations
for § 1983 claims).
3