Pierre v. United States Office of the Comptroller of Currency

Background

Katheline Pierre, who was representing herself, sued the United States Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the United States Office of the Comptroller of Currency (COC). She alleged that multiple financial institutions, including Bank of America, SunTrust Bank, Chase Bank, and Citizens Bank, refused to provide her with depository, credit, and fair-lending services, failed to accommodate her, and discriminated or retaliated against her based on race, color, and gender. She said she reported the alleged misconduct to the FDIC, the COC, and the police, but no action was taken.

Pierre invoked the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, and the Freedom of Information Act. She requested an order directing the FDIC and COC to direct the financial institutions to comply with laws and regulations, as well as $1.5 million in damages. The complaint included documents concerning medical treatment after an automobile accident and a notice of claim filed with the New York City Comptroller’s Office.

Court’s analysis

Because Pierre had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees in advance, the court was required to screen her complaint. The court explained that it had to dismiss a fee-free complaint that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also had to read a self-represented plaintiff’s allegations liberally.

The court concluded that the complaint did not satisfy the requirement for a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief. It was unclear why Pierre was suing the FDIC and COC, how the attachments related to her claims, what had occurred involving the banks and creditors, and why the federal agencies should provide relief for those matters. The court therefore found that the complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

The court also applied sovereign immunity, which generally prevents suits against the United States, federal agencies, and federal officers acting in their official capacities unless immunity has been waived. The court found that Pierre had not identified a statute waiving the United States’ or the FDIC’s immunity. It therefore held that dismissal was also required because the complaint sought money damages from defendants immune from that relief. The court noted that the Federal Tort Claims Act did not cure the defects because Pierre did not allege facts showing tortious conduct by FDIC or COC employees or officers, did not indicate that she had exhausted the required administrative process, and had not named the United States as the defendant for such a claim.

Disposition

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed Pierre’s complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted and because it sought money damages against defendants immune from suit. The court denied leave to amend because it determined that the defects could not be cured by amendment. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denied fee-free status for an appeal, and directed the clerk to enter judgment.