Hicks v. Capital Bank

Filing 8

Order Accepting #6 Findings and Recommendations. (Ordered by Senior Judge A. Joe Fish on 3/26/2024) (ndt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION

LAWRENCE E. HICKS,
Plaintiff,
VS.
CAPITAL BANK,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:24-CV-0517-G-BN

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge made findings and conclusions in this case
recommending that the court dismiss this lawsuit for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction or, in the alternative, because the plaintiff fails to allege a claim on which
relief may be granted. See docket entry 6. Objections were filed. See docket entry 7.
And, through those objections, the plaintiff specifically attempts to establish the
court’s subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 based on an allegation that
the defendant violated the Federal Reserve Act. See id.
But the plaintiff’s reliance on the Federal Reserve Act as a source of federal
question jurisdiction here is misplaced, because “numerous district courts across the
country have found that the Federal Reserve Act does not provide individuals with a

private cause of action.” Smith v. Osvaldik, No. 1:23-CV-01488-HBK, 2024 WL
733227, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2024) (collecting cases), rec. adopted, 2024 WL
1160680 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2024).
The plaintiff’s reliance on the “Bills of Exchange 1882” is similarly frivolous.
See id. (“Similarly, the Court cannot infer any cause of action stemming from
Plaintiff’s identification of the ‘Bill of Exchange Act.’ The undersigned is unable to
identify any federal act by this name. Indeed, other federal district courts likewise
have been unable to identify any federal statute when pro se litigants, who are
attempting to avoid a debt, reference this Act. To the extent Plaintiff refers to the
‘Bills of Exchange Act of 1882’ such claims have been determined to be facially legally
frivolous.”) (citations omitted).
After reviewing de novo those portions of the proposed findings, conclusions,
and recommendation to which objection was made and reviewing the remaining
proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error, the court finds
no error, the plaintiff’s objections are therefore OVERRULED, and the court
ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge.
And, because the plaintiff has filed numerous lawsuits in this district advancing
the same frivolous theories made in this action – over which there is no federal
subject matter jurisdiction – and thereby wasted limited judicial resources, he is
WARNED that should he continue this practice, he will be subject to sanctions,
-2-

which could include monetary penalties and restrictions on his ability to prosecute
actions in federal court pro se and in forma pauperis.
SO ORDERED.
March 26, 2024.
___________________________________
A. JOE FISH
Senior United States District Judge

-3-