Smith v. Wells Fargo

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 4/1/2016. (AVC)

FILED
2016 Apr-01 PM 03:54
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CLIFFORD SMITH,

}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}

Plaintiff,
v.
WELLS FARGO,
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:16-cv-342-WMA

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before the court is the putative conflict of pro se plaintiff
Clifford Smith filed on February 26, 2016. (Doc. 1).

On March 1,

2016, Magistrate Judge Ott entered an order to show cause why the
action was not due to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction and
also for failing to state a claim or being otherwise frivolous
following a sua spone review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). (Doc.
3).

On March 18, 2016, Judge Ott entered a reassignment order for

failing

to

respond

to

said

show

cause

order.

(Doc.

4).

Accordingly, on the same day the Clerk reassigned the aboveentitled case to the undersigned. (Doc. 5).
For the reasons stated below, the court will by separate order
dismiss the putative action.
I.

No Jurisdiction
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction . . . [and]

it is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited
jurisdiction and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon

1

the party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.
Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).

“A district court must have

jurisdiction

of

under

subject-matter
specific

least

jurisdiction:

statutory

pursuant to

at

28

grant;

U.S.C.

§

one
(1)

(2)

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).”

three

jurisdiction
federal

1331;

the

or

(3)

types

pursuant

to

of
a

question

jurisdiction

diversity

jurisdiction

Butler v. Morgan, 562 F. App'x

832, 834 (11th Cir. 2014).
First, Smith does not allege any specific statutory basis for
jurisdiction, instead leaving blank the space on the complaint form
containing a place to identify any specific statute(s) under which
the court might have jurisdiction. (Doc. 1 at 2).
Smith

also

does

jurisdiction per § 1331.

not

allege

any

colorable

basis

for

Smith alleges defendant Wells Fargo “is

a corporation incorporated under the laws of the United States of
America.” (Doc. 1 at 1).

Even assuming Smith intends to sue “Wells

Fargo Bank, N.A.” and said bank is a national bank incorporated
under

federal

law,

“Congress

ended

national

banks'

automatic

qualification for federal jurisdiction in 1882" leaving access to
federal courts only on the basis of diversity of citizenship.
Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 310-11 (2006) (citing 28
U.S.C. § 1348).
Smith

also

does

jurisdiction per § 1332.

not

allege

any

colorable

basis

for

Even assuming that Smith and Wells Fargo

2

are of diverse citizenship, Smith has not demanded a specific sum
of

damages

and

there

is

nothing

that

would

support,

by

a

preponderance of the evidence, that Smith has lost or is otherwise
seeking to recover an amount that might approach $75,000. Federated
Mut. Ins. Co. v. McKinnon Motors, LLC, 329 F.3d 805, 807 (11th Cir.
2003).
Accordingly, the action is due to be dismissed because there
is no basis for jurisdiction.
II.

Frivolousness and Failure to State a Claim
Where a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, “the court shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the
action . . . is frivolous or malicious [or] fails to state a claim
on which relief may be granted;.” 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2).

“A case

is frivolous if (1) the factual allegations are ‘clearly baseless’
or (2) it is based on a[n] ‘indisputably meritless legal theory.’”
Smith v. Hildebrand, 244 F. App'x 288, 290 (11th Cir. 2007)
(quoting Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993)).

“A

complaint fails to state a claim when it appears beyond doubt that
the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of her claim
which would entitle her to relief.” Id. (citing Marsh v. Butler
County, Ala., 268 F.3d 1014, 1022-23 (11th Cir. 2001).
A review of the instant pleading makes clear from the face of
the complaint that the claim is both without a factual or legal
basis.

Smith’s statement of his claim against Wells Fargo and his
3

demand for relief are mostly legible but they are difficult to
understand. (Doc. 1).

Smith alleges that he opened an account at

a local Wells Fargo bank branch on December 7, 2015 and states that
he and his stepmother, who is not a party, also have an account” at
Wells Fargo. (Doc. 1 at 2-3).

Smith appears to state that he

“prefer[s] to close both accounts at Wells Fargo” and “want[s] the
court To effectuate change in This series of Transaction behavior
To foment a closing of Both accounts receivable.” (Doc. 1 at 3).
As far as the court can tell, Smith has brought this federal
lawsuit because he wants the court to order certain bank accounts
closed, however Smith does not allege any facts or cite any law
even hinting that Wells Fargo has engaged in unlawful activity.
Therefore, the action is due to be dismissed sua sponte because
Smith’s allegations are frivolous and fail to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the court by separate order
shall dismiss the above-entitled case.
DONE this 1st day of April, 2016.

_____________________________
WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4