Banks v. Pugh et al
Filing
3
Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2 ) is denied, and this action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to the three strikes rule set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). If Plaintiff wishes to continue this case, he must within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Memorandum of Opinion and Order: (1) pay the $400 filing fee in full, noting the above case style and number; and (2) file a motion to reopen the case. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 5/30/2014. (JLG)
PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
FREDERICK BANKS,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL PUGH, Warden, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 4:13CV2439
JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
[Resolving ECF No. 2]
Pro se Plaintiff Frederick Banks, a federal inmate currently confined at the Northeast
Ohio Correctional Center (“NEOCC”) on a sentence for violation of conditions of supervised
release, filed this action against NEOCC Warden Michael Pugh, the U.S. Probation Office for the
Western District of Pennsylvania, Probation Officer Ben “LNU” (last name unknown) in the
Western District of Pennsylvania, the Chief Probation Officer for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, an unknown Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Western District of Pennsylvania, the
U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, the National Security Agency, the
Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”) Office of Science and Technology, the Attorney General of
the U.S. Eric Holder, Three Unknown Deputy U.S. Marshals, Counselor D. Green, CAA Officer
Gramutte, and U.S. Congressman Mike Doyle. In the Complaint, which appears to be a civil
rights action labeled as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and a Petition for a Writ of
Mandamus, Plaintiff claims his probation officer retaliated against him for attempting to apply
for a grant under the Second Chance Act. He further disputes the veracity of the charge that led
(4:13CV2439)
to revocation proceedings, claims he is being denied access to the law library, and contends the
CIA is harassing him with electromagnetic waves. He seeks “100 Billion dollars plus costs,
interest and fees” as well as his release from federal custody. ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 3.
Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 2). For the
reasons that follow, the motion is denied and this action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
I. Background
Plaintiff is no stranger to the federal courts. Since his incarceration, he has filed a
multitude of civil rights actions against his jailers, various state and federal government agencies,
and political figures, challenging the conditions of his confinement. In the present action,
Plaintiff alleges that as a condition of his release from prison on supervised release, he was
barred from opening new credit accounts without the approval of his probation officer. ECF No.
1 at PageID #:2. He claims another individual opened the account in question and indicates the
account is a brokerage account, not a credit account. ECF No. 1 at PageID #:2. He further
alleges the accounts were not funded because he had not made any trades. ECF No. 1 at PageID
#:2. He admits to having an American Express card and a Hexagon card, but claims the
American Express is a prepaid card, not a credit card, and the Hexagon card was opened before
he was on supervised released. ECF No. 1 at PageID #:2. He claims his probation officer
initiated revocation proceedings to retaliate against him for applying for a grant under the Second
Chance Act. ECF No. 1 at PageID #:1. He also claims CAA Officer Gramutte denied him
access to the prison law library, and contends the CIA and the United States government are
2
(4:13CV2439)
harassing him with electromagnetic waves. ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 2-3. Finally, he asserts the
Defendants owe him “100 Billion dollars.” ECF No. 1 at PageID #:3.
II. Standard of Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a court may authorize the commencement of an action
without prepayment of fees if an applicant has shown by affidavit that he satisfies the criterion of
poverty. Prisoners, however, become responsible for paying the entire amount of their filing fees
and costs from the moment they file the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). When an inmate seeks
pauper status, the only issue for the Court to determine is whether the inmate pays the entire fee
at the initiation of the proceeding or over a period of time under an installment plan. Id.
Moreover, absent imminent danger, the benefit of the installment plan is denied to prisoners who
have on three or more prior occasions, while incarcerated, brought an action that was dismissed
on the grounds that it was frivolous, malicious or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
In interpreting the “three strikes” language of this section, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has held that “where a complaint is dismissed in part without
prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and in part with prejudice because ‘it is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,’ the dismissal
should be counted as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).” Pointer v. Wilkinson, 502 F.3d 369,
377 (6th Cir. 2007). Dismissals of actions entered prior to the effective date of the Prisoner
Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) also are “counted toward the ‘three strikes’ referred to in 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g).” Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596, 604 (6th Cir. 1998). Additionally, a
3
(4:13CV2439)
petition for writ of mandamus is a “civil action” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and
as such, is counted toward the three strikes where the prisoner’s mandamus claims are essentially
indistinguishable from those typically alleged in a civil rights action. See In re Kissi, 652 F.3d
39, 41-42 (D.C. Cir. 2011); In re Nagy, 89 F.3d 115, 117 (2d Cir. 1996); Green v. Nottingham,
90 F.3d 415, 417-18 (10th Cir. 1996) (“The IFP amendments specifically target litigation by
prisoners. Allowing prisoners to continue filing actions as they had before enactment of the
amendments, merely by framing pleadings as petitions for mandamus would allow a loophole
Congress surely did not intend in its stated goal of ‘discourag[ing] frivolous and abusive prison
lawsuits.’” (quoting H.R.Rep. No. 104-378, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. 166)).
As the language of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) indicates, the three strikes provision will not
apply if a “prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” For purposes of
interpreting the statute, the Court considers whether Plaintiff is in imminent danger at the time of
the filing of the complaint. Vandiver v. Vasbinder, 416 F. App’x 560, 562 (6th Cir. 2011)
(“[T]he plain language of § 1915(g) requires the imminent danger to be contemporaneous with
the complaint’s filing.”). Although the Sixth Circuit has not offered a precise definition of
“imminent danger,” it has suggested that the threat of serious physical injury “must be real and
proximate.” Rittner v. Kinder, 290 F. App’x 796, 797 (6th Cir. 2008). Moreover, the imminent
danger exception “is essentially a pleading requirement subject to the ordinary principles of
notice pleading.” Vandiver, 416 F. App’x at 562. See also Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d
1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007) (suggesting that courts should focus solely on the facts alleged in the
complaint when deciding whether a prisoner faces imminent danger).
4
(4:13CV2439)
III. Law and Analysis
Plaintiff is a well-established, multi-district, frequent filer, who has, on well more than
three prior occasions, “brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was
dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious or fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). This Court conducted a brief search at the district court
level, and found over 205 cases that Plaintiff filed in the Northern District of Ohio, the District of
Massachusetts, the Southern District of Mississippi, the District of Columbia, the Southern
District of New York, the District of Colorado, the District of Arizona, the Southern District of
Florida, the Middle District of Florida, the Eastern District of North Carolina, the Middle and
Western Districts of Pennsylvania, the Eastern District of Missouri, the Eastern District of New
Jersey, the Eastern District of Arkansas, the Western District of Oklahoma, the District of Utah,
and the District of Alaska.1 Of those cases, 50 were dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e), and 100 were dismissed pursuant to the three strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Furthermore, Plaintiff attempted to circumvent dismissal under § 1915(g) by filing 29 civil rights
actions and 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petitions. Those 29 cases were dismissed as frivolous or as
improper filings.
Plaintiff has not limited his litigious activities to civil rights and habeas actions. In the
Western District of Pennsylvania, Plaintiff filed 27 adversarial cases in Bankruptcy Court and
then appealed the summary dismissal of those actions to the District Court. He filed 25 of those
appeals on the same day, and filed the other 2 appeals one month later. All 27 cases were
summarily dismissed as inappropriate filings in a bankruptcy action. In addition, Plaintiff filed
5
(4:13CV2439)
motions to appear ad hoc vice as counsel for the defendant in two criminal cases in Florida. In
one of those cases, the defendant indicated to the court that he did not solicit or desire Plaintiff’s
representation.
In fact, Plaintiff’s frivolous filings became so prolific that the Western District of
Pennsylvania and the Eastern District of Arkansas took the extraordinary step of enjoining
Plaintiff from filing any additional actions without leave of court. The Western District of
Pennsylvania indicated Plaintiff had filed at least 304 civil actions between November of 2004
and July 2013.2 See Banks v. Unknown Named Number of U.S. Postal Inspectors, No. 2:13-cv1198 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 1, 2013).
Plaintiff’s captioning of his pleading in this action as a mandamus petition and/or a
habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 does not defeat the application of the PLRA’s prohibition
on proceeding IFP in this action. Plaintiff asserts claims for retaliation, denial of access to the
courts and harassment by the CIA. He seeks monetary damages. These are allegations for a civil
rights action, not a habeas corpus action challenging the manner in which a sentence is being
carried out. See Capaldi v. Pontesso, 135 F.3d 1122, 1123 (6th Cir. 1998) (citing United States
v. Jalili, 925 F.2d 889, 893 (6th Cir. 1991)); Wright v. United States Bd. of Parole, 557 F.2d 74,
77 (6th Cir. 1977). His pleading is without a doubt a ‘complaint,’ no matter what he titles it.
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (9th ed. 2009) (defining complaint as an “initial pleading that starts a
civil action and states the basis for the court’s jurisdiction, the basis for the plaintiff’s claim, and
the demand for relief.”). See, e.g., Banks v. Warden, FPC Canaan, No. 1:11-CV-0668, 2011 WL
1542132, at *1 n. 2 (M.D. Pa. April 21, 2011) (“Although styled as a ‘complaint for a writ of
6
(4:13CV2439)
mandamus’ it is clear that plaintiff is initiating a civil action.”); Banks v. Sager, No. 1:11-CV0741, 2011 WL 1542136, at *1 (M.D. Pa. April 21, 2011) (same); Banks v. Lappin, No. 08-0152
(EGS), 2008 WL 2874193, at *1 (D.D.C. July 25, 2008) (vacating grant of IFP to Plaintiff in a
proceeding Plaintiff captioned as a mandamus, rejecting that characterization, stating: “[I]t would
defeat the purpose of the PLRA if a prisoner could evade its requirements simply by dressing up
an ordinary civil action as a petition for mandamus or prohibition or by joining it with a petition
for habeas corpus.” (quoting In re Smith, 114 F.3d 1247, 1250 (D.C. Cir. 1997))).
Because Plaintiff has accumulated three strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he
cannot proceed in forma pauperis in this action unless he has adequately pled that he was under
“imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed the Complaint (ECF No. 1). To
be considered imminent, the danger must be contemporaneous with the complaint’s filing.
Vandiver, 416 F. App’x at 562 (finding that “[b]ecause § 1915(g) uses the present tense in setting
forth the imminent danger exception, it is clear from the face of the statute that the danger must
exist at the time the complaint is filed.”) (quoting Malik v. McGinnis, 293 F.3d 559, 562-63 (2d
Cir. 2002); see also Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715, 717 (8th Cir. 1998) (plaintiff sufficiently
alleged imminent danger of serious physical injury where he claimed that he was placed near
inmates on his enemy list and subjected to ongoing danger); Banos v. O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 885
(5th Cir. 1998) (past body cavity searches failed to establish imminent danger of serious physical
injury); Luedtke v. Bertrand, 32 F. Supp.2d 1074, 1077 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (allegation of past
physical injury is insufficient to meet statutory exception). Conclusory or vague allegations of
some potential danger are insufficient to satisfy the exception to the three strikes rule. Thompson
7
(4:13CV2439)
v. Sampson, No. 1:10-cv-231, 2010 WL 1027897, at *2-3 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 18, 2010).
Similarly, a prisoner-plaintiff with three strikes falls outside the exception when he is no longer
in danger at the initiation of proceedings in federal court. Vandiver, 416 F. App’x at 562.
None of the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) suggest that he is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury. He is being held in NEOCC pending a decision by
the Western District of Pennsylvania on revocation charges. Plaintiff does not allege he is under
threat of serious physical injury. Thus, the exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) does not apply in
this case, and Plaintiff may not proceed in forma pauperis. See Vandiver, Ashley, Banos, and
Luedtke, supra.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is denied, and
this action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to the three strikes rule set forth in 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). If Plaintiff wishes to continue this case, he must within thirty (30) days of the entry of
this Memorandum of Opinion and Order: (1) pay the $400 filing fee in full, noting the above
case style and number; and (2) file a motion to reopen the case. The Court certifies, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
May 30, 2014
Date
/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge
8
(4:13CV2439)
1.
Cases filed by Banks which were dismissed as frivolous, malicious or failed to state a
claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); were dismissed under the three strikes provision of 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g); or were dismissed because they were civil rights actions filed
inappropriately as bankruptcy appeals or habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Northern District of Ohio: Banks v. Action Software, No. 1:07 CV 930 (N.D. Ohio
July 9, 2007)(§ 1915(e)); Banks v. Scarsborough, No. 4:13 CV 170 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 29,
2013)(§1915(g)); Banks v. Pugh, 4:13 CV 335 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 7, 2013)(civil rights action
filed improperly under §2241); Banks v. U.S. Marshal, No. 4:13 CV 490 (N.D. Ohio June 19,
2013)(§1915(e)); Banks v. An Unknown Named Number of Federal Judges and United States
Covert Government Agents, No. 1:13 CV 1763 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 10, 2013)(§1915(e)); and
Banks v. CCA Corporate Office, No. 4:13 CV 2721 (N.D. Ohio April 23, 2014)(§1915(g)).
Middle District of Pennsylvania: Banks v. Nicklin, No. 1:06 CV 1396 (M.D. Pa Sept.
26, 2007)(dismissed as frivolous); Banks v. Multi-Million Dollar Mistakes of Julie Nicklin,
No. 1:06 CV 1549 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 20, 2007)(dismissed as frivolous); Banks v. Dove, No.
1:06 CV 2289 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2007)(§ 1915(e)); Banks v. Green, No. 1:07 CV 21 (M.D.
Pa. Dec. 11, 2007)(§1915(e)); Banks v. Allen, No. 1:07 CV 22 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 29,
2007)(§1915(e)); Banks v. Crockett, No. 1:07 CV 1019 (M.D. Pa. June 7, 2007)(§ 1915(g));
Banks v. United States Attorney, No. 1:08 CV 1394 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 15, 2008)(§ 1915(e));
Banks v. Williams, No. 1:10 CV 675 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 14, 2010)(§ 1915(g)); Banks v. Pearson,
No. 1:10 CV 1103 (M.D. Pa. May 26, 2010)(§ 1915(g)); Banks v. Guffy, No. 1:10 CV 2130
(M.D. Pa. Jan. 10, 2012)(§1915(e) and § 1915(g)); Banks v. Equitable Gas Co., No. 1:11 CV
511 (M.D. Pa. May 31, 2011)(§ 1915(e)); Banks v. Warden, No. 1:11 CV 668 (M.D. Pa. Apr.
21, 2011)(§ 1915(g)); Banks v. Whitaker, No. 1:11 CV 669 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 19, 2011)(§
1915(g)); Banks v. Sager, No. 1:11 CV 741 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 21, 2011)(§ 1915(g)); and Banks
v. CIA, No. 13 CV 2664 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 2013)(§1915(e)). In addition, Banks filed 38 cases
which were transferred to other District Courts.
Western District of Pennsylvania: Banks v. Hull, No. 2:04 CV 1771(W.D. Pa. July 3,
2007)(§ 1915(e) and §1915(g)); Banks v. Nordtvedt, No. 2:05 CV 607 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 28,
2006)(§1915(e)); Banks v. Cty of Allegheny, Pa., No 2:05 CV 781 (W.D. Pa. June 30,
2008)(§1915(e)); Banks v. Hayward, No. 2:06 CV 509 (W.D. Pa. May 30, 2006)(§1915(e));
Banks v. Aramark Correctional Services, No. 2:06 CV 1424 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 15, 2008)(§
1915(e)); Banks v. Hayward, No. 2:06 CV 1572 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 10, 2007)(§1915(e)); Banks
v. Pittsburgh Tribune Review, No. 2:07 CV 336 (W.D. Pa. May 4, 2007)(§ 1915(e)); Banks v.
Buchanan, No. 2:08 CV 1209 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 21, 2008)(§1915(e)); Banks. v. United States,
No. 2:09 CV 676 (W.D. Pa. July 14, 2009)(§ 2255 habeas petition dismissed because it was a
civil rights action inappropriately filed in criminal action); Banks v. Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, No. 2:09 CV 1437 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 11, 2010)(§1915A); Banks v. U.S.
Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:11 CV 626 (W.D. Pa. Dec.
9
(4:13CV2439)
22, 2011)(§1915(e)); Banks v. T. Blumm, No. 2:11 CV 640 (W.D. Pa. May 19, 2011)(§
1915(g)); Banks v. Balland, No. 2:13 CV 58 (W.D. Pa. May 8, 2013)(§1915(g)); Banks v.
Renewal, Inc., No. 2:13 CV 129 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 11, 2013)(§1915(g)); Banks v. Sproat, 2:13
CV 922 (W.D. Pa. July 19, 2013)(mandamus dismissed under § 1915(g)); Banks v. United
Safety Service, No. 2:13 CV 1198 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 6, 2013)(§ 1915(g)); Banks v. Ben, No.
2:13 CV 1582 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 5, 2013)(§ 1915(g)); Banks v. United States, No. 2:13 CV
1615 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 13, 2013)(§ 1915(g)); Banks v. Realty Counseling Co., No. 2:13 CV
1025 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 20, 2013)(§ 1915(e)); Banks v. State Farm, No. 2:13 CV 1151 (W.D.
Pa. Nov. 13, 2013)(§ 1915(e)); Banks v. State Farm, No. 2:13 CV 1152 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 28,
2013)(§ 1915(e)); Banks v. United States Probation Dep’t for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, No. 2:13 CV 1199 (W.D. Pa. Sept, 19, 2013)(§ 1915(e)); Banks v. Duquesne
Light Co., No. 2:13 CV 1350 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 14, 2013)(§ 1915(e)); Banks v. Machesky, No.
2:13 CV 781 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 6, 2013)(§ 1915(e)); Banks v. Southside Salvation Army
Halfway House and Store/Warehouse, No. 2:13 CV 939 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 16, 2013)(§
1915(e)); see also Banks v. Moore, No.2:05-cv-00261 (W.D. Pa Mar. 2, 2006) (civil action
filed as bankruptcy appeal); Banks v. Berger, No. 2:05-cv-00594 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2006)
(civil action filed as bankruptcy appeal); Banks v. Herbert, No. 2:05-cv-00595 (W. D. Pa.
Feb. 28, 2006)(civil action filed as bankruptcy appeal); Banks v. Byrd, No. 2:05-cv-00596
(W. D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2006)(civil action filed as bankruptcy appeal); Banks v. Wells, No.
2:05-cv-00597 (W. D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2006)(civil action filed as bankruptcy appeal); Banks v.
Monkey Karaoke, No. 2:05-cv-00598 (W. D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2006)(civil action filed as
bankruptcy appeal); Bank v. Russell, No. 2:05-cv-00599-JFC (W. D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2006)(civil
action filed as bankruptcy appeal); Banks v. Davis, No. 2:05-cv-00600-JFC (W. D. Pa. Feb.
28, 2006)(civil action filed as bankruptcy appeal); Banks v. Nathan Angelus Software, No.
2:05-cv-00601 (W. D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2006)(civil action filed as bankruptcy appeal); Banks v.
County of Allegheny, No. 2:05-cv-00602-JFC (W. D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2006)(civil action filed as
bankruptcy appeal); Banks v. Hentosh, No. 2:05-cv-00603-JFC (W. D. Pa. Feb. 28,
2006)(civil action filed as bankruptcy appeal); Banks v. American Express, No.
2:05-cv-00604-JFC (W. D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2006)(civil action filed as bankruptcy appeal); Banks
v. Action Software, No. 2:05-cv-00605-JFC (W. D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2006)(civil action filed as
bankruptcy appeal); Banks v. 101 Distribution, No. 2:05-cv-00606 (W. D. Pa. Feb. 28,
2006)(civil action filed as bankruptcy appeal); Banks v. Nordtvedt, No. 2:05-cv-00607-JFC
(W. D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2006)(civil action filed as bankruptcy appeal); Banks v. Rabin, No.
2:05-cv-00608 (W. D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2006)(civil action filed as bankruptcy appeal); Banks v.
Hickman, No. 2:05-cv-00609 (W. D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2006)(civil action filed as bankruptcy
appeal); Banks v. Pinkas, No. 2:05-cv-00610-JFC (W. D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2006)(civil action filed
as bankruptcy appeal); Banks v. Taylor, No. 2:05-cv-00611-JFC (W. D. Pa. Feb. 28,
2006)(civil action filed as bankruptcy appeal); Banks v. LaBella, No. 2:05-cv-00612-JFC
(W. D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2006)(civil action filed as bankruptcy appeal); Banks v. Calabrese, No.
2:05-cv-00613-JFC (W. D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2006)(civil action filed as bankruptcy appeal);
Banks v. Fox, No. 2:05-cv-00614 (W. D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2006)(civil action filed as bankruptcy
appeal); Banks v. Freund , No. 2:05-cv-00615-JFC (W. D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2006)(civil action
10
(4:13CV2439)
filed as bankruptcy appeal); Banks v. DKT, No. 2:05-cv-00616-JFC (W. D. Pa. Feb. 28,
2006)(civil action filed as bankruptcy appeal); Banks v. Bank One, N.A., No.
2:05-cv-00617-JFC (W. D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2006)(civil action filed as bankruptcy appeal); Banks
v. Moore, No. 2:05-cv-01064-JFC (W. D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2006)(civil action filed as bankruptcy
appeal); In Re Banks, 2:05-cv-01128-JFC (W. D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2006)(civil action filed as
bankruptcy appeal).
District of Massachusetts: Banks v. Sutherland, No. 1:08 CV 10880 (D. Mass. May
28, 2008)(§ 1915(g)).
District of New Jersey; Banks v. Tabatchnick Fine Foods, No. 3:07 CV 4889 (D. N.J.
Oct. 18, 2007)(§1915(g)); Banks v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 1:11 CV 1449 (D. N.J.
Feb. 14, 2012)(§ 1915(g)); Banks v. Marantz, No. 1:11 CV 1668 (D. N.J. Feb. 10, 2012)(§
1915(g)); Banks v. Marantz, No. 1:11 CV 1753 (D. N.J. Feb. 14, 2012)(§ 1915(g)); Banks v.
Wagner, No. 1:11 CV 2854, (D. N.J. Feb. 10, 2012)(§ 1915(g)); Banks v. Director, No. 1:11
CV 2876 (D. N.J. Feb 10, 2012)(§ 1915(g)); Banks. v. FCI Fort Dix Food Services, No. 1:11
CV 3446 (D. N.J. June 27, 2011)(§ 1915(g)); Banks v. Sutherland, 1:11 CV 4951, (D. N.J.
Sept. 6, 2011)(§ 1915(g)); Banks v. Lofton, No. 1:11 CV 5221 (D. N.J. Dec. 30, 2011)(§
1915(g)).
Eastern District of North Carolina: Banks v. Waiters, No. 5:06 CV 491 (EDNC June
7, 2007)(§1915(e)); Banks v. Stansberry, No. 5:06 HC 2153 (EDNC Nov. 13, 2006)(civil
rights action filed under § 2241 dismissed as frivolous) Banks v. Stansberry, No. 5:07 HC
2023 (EDNC Apr. 2, 2007)(civil rights action filed under § 2241 dismissed as frivolous);
Banks v. Stansberry, No. 5:07 HC 2011 (EDNC Apr. 5, 2007)(civil rights action filed under §
2241 dismissed as frivolous); Banks v. United States Attorney, No. 5:08 HC 2117 (EDNC
Dec. 31, 2008)(mandamus dismissed under §1915(e)).
District of Columbia District: Banks v. President United States, No. 1:06 CV 1868
(DDC Nov. 1, 2006)(§ 1915(e)); Banks v. One Hundred or More Unknown Named Federal
Agents, No. 1:06 CV 2066 (DDC Dec. 4, 2006)(civil rights action filed under § 2241 and
dismissed); Banks v. Moran, 1:07 CV 466 (DDC Mar. 19, 2007)(§ 1915(e)); Banks v.
Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 1:08 CV 18 (DDC July 25, 2008)(§ 1915(g)); Banks v.
Lappin, No. 1:08 CV 152 (DDC Sept. 4, 2008)(§ 1915(g)); Banks v. Lawson, No. 1:08 MC
277 (DDC May 27, 2008)(§ 1915(g)).
Western District of Oklahoma: Banks v. United States Marshal Serv., No. 5:07 CV
229 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 1, 2007)(§ 1915A); Banks v. Partyka, No. 5:07 CV 331 (W.D. Okla.
Sept. 11, 2007)(§1915(e)); Banks v. Warden of the Federal Transfer Center, No. 5:11 CV
151 (W.D. Okla. July 13, 2011)(civil rights action filed under § 2241); Banks v. Warden of
the Federal Transfer Center, No. 5:11 CV 201 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 5, 2012)(civil rights action
filed under § 2241).
11
(4:13CV2439)
Eastern District of Arkansas: Banks v. Bureau of Indian Affairs, No. 2:11 CV 191
(ED Ark. July 10, 2012)(§ 1915(e) and § 1915(g)); Banks v. Aviant, No. 2:12 CV 69 (E.D.
Ark. June 15, 2012)(§ 1915(g)); Banks v. Outlaw, No. 2:12 CV 94 (E.D. Ark June 14,
2012)(§ 1915(g)); Banks v. Jones, No. 2:12 CV 128 (E.D. Ark. July 16, 2013)(§ 1915(g));
Banks v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 2:12 CV 137 (E.D. Ark. Aug. 20, 2012)(§ 1915(g));
Banks v. Fenner, No. 2:12 CV 138 (E.D. Ark. July 18, 2012)(§ 1915(g)); Banks v. Warden,
No. 2:12 CV 139 (E.D. Ark. July 19, 2012)(§1915(g)); Banks v. Federal Bureau of Prisons,
No. 2:12 CV 150 (E.D. Ark. Mar. 25, 2013)(§1915(e)); Banks v. Johnson, No. 2:12 CV 177
(E.D. Ark. Sept. 19, 2012)(§ 1915(g)); Banks v. Clinton, No. 4:12 CV 183 (E.D. Ark. Mar.
28, 2012)(§ 1915(g)); Banks v. Hanks, No. 2:12 CV 221 (E.D. Ark. Jan. 31, 2013)(§
1915(g)); Banks v. Pugh. No. 2:13 CV 30 (E.D. Ark. Apr. 1, 2013)(§ 1915(g)); Banks v.
Forest City, No. 2:13 CV 38 (E.D. Ark. Apr. 25, 2013)(§ 1915(e)); Banks v. Halke, No. 2:13
CV 60 (E.D. Ark. June 14, 2013)(§ 1915(g)); Banks v. Does, No. 2:13 CV 64 (E.D. Ark. May
29, 2013)(§1915(g)); Banks v. Roberts, No. 2:13 CV 70 (E.D. Ark. July 2, 2013)(§ 1915(g));
Banks v. Haynes, No. 2:13 CV 82 (E.D. Ark. July 8, 2013)(§1915(e)); Banks v. Thompson,
No. 4:13 CV 382 (E.D. Ark. July 3, 2013)(§ 1915(g)); Banks v. Davenport, No. 4:13 CV 412
(E.D. Ark. Aug. 27, 2013)(denied ifp in district court and on appeal under § 1915(g)); Banks
v. Antitrust Div., No. 4:13 CV 455 (E.D. Ark. Aug. 12, 2013)(§ 1915(g) dismissal and
enjoined); Banks v. Davenport, No. 4:13 CV 480 (E.D. Ark. Aug. 22, 2013)(§ 1915(e));
Banks v. Davenport, No. 4:13 CV 481 (E.D. Ark. Oct. 10, 2013)(§ 1915(e)); Banks v.
Samuels, No. 4:13 CV 482 (E.D. Ark. Aug. 22, 2013)(§1915(e)).
Eastern District of Missouri: Banks. v. United States Attorney, No. 1:08 CV 58 (ED
Mo. May 12, 2008)(dismissed § 1915(e), denied ifp on appeal § 1915(g)).
Southern District of Mississippi: Banks v. Reese, No. 5:07 CV 117 (S.D. Miss. May
15, 2008)(§ 1915(g)); Banks v. Holt, No. 5:07 CV 161 (S.D. Miss. May 15, 2008)(§ 1915(g));
Banks v. Reese, No. 5:07 CV 172 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 14, 2007)(dismissed as civil rights action
filed as a § 2241 petition); Banks v. Duckworth, No. 5:07 CV 214 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 14,
2008)(§ 1915(g)); Banks v. Williams, No. 5:07 CV 226 (S.D. Miss. May 2, 2008)(§ 1915(g));
Banks v. Dalton, No. 5:07 CV 183 (S.D. Miss Nov. 16, 2007)(dismissed as civil rights action
filed as a § 2241 petition); Banks v. Wright, No. 5:07 CV 193 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 13,
2007)(dismissed as civil rights action filed as a § 2241 petition); Banks v. Reese, No. 5:07
CV 34 (May 4, 2007)(dismissed as civil rights action filed as a § 2241 petition); Banks v.
Reese, No. 5:08 CV 12 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 30, 2009)(civil rights action filed as a § 2241 petition
dismissed as frivolous); Banks v. Pearson, No. 5:08 CV 153 (S.D. Miss. July 10,
2009)(dismissed as civil rights action filed as a § 2241 petition); Banks v. Sutherland, No.
5:08 CV 222 (S.D. Miss Oct. 27, 2008)(§ 1915(g)); Banks v. Pearson, No. 5:08 CV 233
(S.D. Miss. Nov. 7, 2008)(§ 1915(g)); Banks v. Pearson, No. 5:08 CV 248 (S.D. Miss. Oct.
24, 2008)(§ 1915(g)); Banks v. United States Attorney, No. 5:08 CV 255 (S.D. Miss Dec. 22,
2008)(§ 1915(g)); Banks v. Bradshaw, No. 5:08 CV 261 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 5, 2008)(§
1915(g)); Banks v. Williams, No. 5:08 CV 271 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 23, 2009)(§1915(g)); Banks
12
(4:13CV2439)
v. Bradshaw, No. 5:08 CV 276 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 25, 2009)(§ 1915(g)); Banks v. Postmaster,
Yazoo City, No. 5:08 CV 281 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 23 2009)(§ 1915(g)); Banks v. Pearson, No.
5:08 CV 313 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 22, 2009)(civil rights action filed as a § 2241 petition
dismissed as frivolous under § 1915(e)); Banks v. Hunt, No. 5:08 CV 318 (S.D. Miss. Jan.
29, 2009)(civil rights action filed as a §2241 petition); Banks v. Pearson, No. 5:08 CV 339
(S.D. Miss. Jan. 22, 2009)(mandamus dismissed as frivolous); Banks v. Luton, No. 5:08 CV
340 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 22, 2009)(civil rights action filed under § 2241 dismissed. Court states
Banks is attempting to avoid § 1915(g) by filing § 2241 petition); Banks v. Hunt, No. 5:09
CV 65 (S.D. Miss. May 12, 2009)(civil rights action filed under §2241); Banks v. Hunt, No.
5:09 CV 71 (S.D. Miss. May 12, 2009)(§ 1915(g)); Banks v. Obama, No. 5:09 CV 74 (S.D.
Miss. Aug. 6, 2009)(mandamus dismissed as frivolous); Banks v. United States, No. 5:09 CV
77 (S.D. Miss. May 15, 2009)(§ 1915(g)); Banks v. Obama, No. 5:09 CV 78 (S.D. Miss.
May 18, 2009)(§1915(g)); Banks v. Edwards, No. 5:09 CV 79 (S.D. Miss. May 18,
2009)(§1915(g)); Banks v. Foster, No. 5:09 CV 83 (S.D. Miss. May 21, 2009)(§1915(g));
Banks v. John Does, No. 5:09 CV 114 (S.D. Miss. Oct. 13, 2009)(failure to comply with
court’s orders); Banks v. Pearson, No. 5:09 CV 155 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 9, 2010)(civil rights
actions filed as a § 2241 petition); Banks v. Obama, No. 5:09 CV 158 (S.D. Miss. Oct. 21,
2009)(civil rights action field as a § 2241 petition dismissed as frivolous); Banks v. Allen,
NO. 5:09 CV 169 (S.D. Miss. Oct. 23, 2009)(§ 1915(g)); Banks v. Everett, No. 5:09 CV 173
(S.D. Miss. Oct. 21, 2009)(§ 1915(g)); Banks v. Everett, No. 5:09 CV 174 (S.D. Miss. Oct.
21, 2009)(§ 1915(g));Banks v. Chisolm, No. 5:09 CV 181 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 10,
2009)(§1915(g)); Banks v. Everett, 5:09 CV 183 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 19, 2009)(§2241 petition
dismissed as frivolous); Banks v. Everett, 5:09 CV 194 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 9, 2010)(civil rights
action filed under § 2241 dismissed); Banks v. Chisolm, No. 5:09 CV 198 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 9,
2010)(civil rights action filed under §2241 dismissed as frivolous); Banks v. Fiber, No. 5:09
CV 201 (S.D. Miss. Dec. 4, 2009)(§1915(g)); Banks v. Check, No. 5:09 CV 211 (S.D. Miss.
Mar. 4, 2010)(civil rights action filed as § 2241 found to be duplicative of Case No. 5:09 CV
132, and dismissed as frivolous); Banks v. Unknown Richard, No. 5:09 CV 212 (S.D. Miss.
Jan. 7, 2010)(§1915(g)); Banks v. Holsten, No. 5:10 CV 008 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 8, 2010)(civil
rights action filed under § 2241 dismissed as frivolous. Banks warned against filing
inappropriate §2241 petitions); Banks v. Blow, No. 5:10 CV 10 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 28,
2012)(civil rights action filed as a §2241 petition dismissed as frivolous); Banks v. Pearson,
No. 5:10 CV 22 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 28, 2012)(same); Banks v. Blow, No. 5:10 CV 23 (S.D.
Miss. Mar. 10, 2010)(§1915(g)); Banks v. Roberts, No. 5:10 CV 39 (S.D. Miss. May 11,
2010)(§ 1915(g)); Banks v. Williams, No. 5:10 CV 41 (S.D. Miss. Apr. 30, 2010)(§ 1915(g));
Banks v. Burch, No. 5:10 CV 46 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 31, 2010)(§1915(g)); Banks v. Langford,
No. 5:10 CV 53 (S.D. Miss. Apr. 26, 2010)(§1915(g)); Banks v. Gower, No. 5:10 CV 56
(S.D. Miss. May 7, 2010)(§1915(g)); Banks v/ Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 5:10 CV 58
(S.D. Miss. Apr. 30, 2010)(§1915(g)); Banks v. Gower, No. 5:10 CV 59 (S.D. Miss. May 7,
2010)(§ 1915(g)); Banks v. Barnes, No. 5:10 CV 60 (S.D. Miss. May 27, 2010)(§1915(g));
Banks v. Burch, No. 5:10 CV 61 (S.D. Miss. Apr. 26, 2010)(§1915(g)); Banks v. Everett, No.
5:10 CV 62 (S.D. Miss. May 27, 2010)(§1915(g)); Banks v. Lott, No. 5:10 CV 78 (S.D. Miss.
13
(4:13CV2439)
May 7, 2010)(§1915(g)); Banks v. Love, No. 5:10 CV 83 (S.D. Miss. May 12, 2010)(§
1915(g)); Banks v. Langford, No. 5:10 CV 88 (S.D. Miss. May 27, 2010)(§ 1915(g)); Banks
v. Pitts, No. 5:10 CV 91 (S.D. Miss. May 27, 2010)(§ 1915(g)); Banks v. Pearson, No. 5:10
CV 93 (S.D. Miss. June 2, 2010)(§1915(g)); Banks v. Pearson, No. 5:10 CV 94 (S.D. Miss.
June 1, 2010)(§1915(g)); Thomas et al. v. 2255 Haley Barbour Parkway, No. 5:10 CV 108
(S.D. Miss. Mar. 23, 2011)(court determined Banks was attempting to avoid §1915(g) by
filing with other plaintiffs. Court separated the cases and dismissed Banks under § 1915(g));
Banks v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 5:10 CV 109 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 9, 2010)(civil rights
case filed as a § 2241 petition dismissed with prejudice as frivolous); Banks v. Sessions, No.
5:10 CV 141 (S.D. Miss. Dec. 22, 2011)(civil rights action filed under § 2241 dismissed as
frivolous); Banks v. Secretary of the Interior, No. 5:10 CV 157 (S.D. Miss. Oct. 22,
2010)(§1915(g)); Banks v. Secretary of the Interior, No. 5:10 CV 164 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 2,
2010)(§1915(g)); Banks v. United States, No. 5:11 CV 32 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 4,
2011)(§1915(g)); Banks v. 2255 Haley Barbour Parkway, No. 5:11 CV 48 (S.D. Miss. Mar.
31, 2011)(§1915(g)).
District of Alaska: Banks v. Sutherland, No. 3:08 CV 126 (D. Alaska June 11,
2008)(transferred to the Southern District of Mississippi. No connection to Alaska.)
District of Arizona: Banks v. Hardy, No. 4:11 CV 004 (D. Ariz. Jan. 25,
2011)(§1915(e) in district court; ifp denied on appeal under §1915(g)); Banks v. Brown, No.
4:11 CV 16 (D. Ariz. Jan. 25, 2011)(§1915(g)); Banks v. Graber, No. 4:11 CV 25 (D. Ariz.
Mar. 25, 2011)(§ 1915(g) and §1915(e)); Banks v. Unknown Party, No. 4:11 CV 31 (D. Ariz.
Feb. 1, 2011)(§1915(g)); Banks v. Arnold, No. 4:11 CV 79 (D. Ariz. Mar. 24, 2011)(§
1915(g)); Banks v. Smith, No. 2:11 CV 298 (D. Ariz. Feb. 18, 2011)(§1915(e)).
District of Colorado: Banks v.Vio Software, No. 1:07 CV 587 (D. Colo. July 10,
2007)(§1915(e)).
Southern District of New York: Banks v. Toobin, No. 1:10 CV 1857 (SDNY Mar. 10,
2010) (§1915(e)).
In addition, Banks attempted to enter an appearance to represent other inmates in two
separate criminal actions in Florida. In United States v. Jadusingh, No. 6:05 cr 9 (MD. Fla.),
Banks filed a Motion to Modify Sentence on behalf of Jadusingh and a Motion to Appear Ad
Hoc Vice. Because he was not an attorney and was himself a prisoner, the documents were
stricken. Similarly, in United States v. Smith, No. 0:91 cr 6159 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 14, 2008),
Banks filed a Motion to appear Ad Hoc Vice seeking to represent the Defendant. The
request was stricken because Banks is not an attorney, is himself incarcerated, and filed the
document without the consent of the Defendant who did not want his services.
Banks also has two cases currently pending in the District of Utah: Banks v. Jackson,
14
(4:13CV2439)
No. 2:13 CV 930 (D. Utah filed Oct. 9, 2013) and Banks v. National Security Agency, No.
2:13 CV 931 (D. Utah filed Oct. 9, 2013).
2.
This figure of 304 civil actions includes actions filed with appellate courts as well as
those filed in the district courts, and include habeas corpus petitions.
15
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?