Hankerson v. Unclaim Funds of Commissioner
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-02384
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Hankerson v. Unclaim Funds Commissioner, Judge Swain dismissed Hankerson’s suit over inherited and unclaimed assets for jurisdictional and pleading defects.
Theresa Ann Hankerson’s claims were dismissed. Her claims seeking inherited assets were dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; her Section 1983 claims against Citibank and Attorney Vicktor Brown were dismissed for failure to state a claim; and her Section 1983 claims concerning unclaimed assets were dismissed without prejudice to pursuing New York administrative and judicial remedies. Her state-law claims were not decided because the court declined supplemental jurisdiction.
What happened
In Hankerson v. Unclaim Funds Commissioner, Theresa Ann Hankerson sued several defendants over alleged withholding of inherited gold, inheritance information, and unclaimed funds. She also alleged that Attorney Vicktor Brown had harmed other lawsuits. Hankerson represented herself and sought the return of her inheritance and unclaimed funds.
The court ruled that it could not decide claims seeking inherited assets because federal courts generally cannot administer estates or control property held by a state court. It dismissed Hankerson’s constitutional claims against Citibank and Brown because she did not allege that they acted for the state. It also dismissed her constitutional claims concerning unclaimed assets because she had not alleged that she used New York’s administrative and judicial procedures for challenging the State Comptroller’s decisions. Those claims were dismissed without prejudice to pursuing those state procedures. The court declined to decide the remaining state-law claims.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action, denied permission to amend because amendment would be futile, directed entry of judgment, and denied fee-free status for any appeal because an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Hankerson v. Unclaim Funds of Commissioner · No. 1:24-cv-02384
- Laura Swain
- June 27, 2024
Background
Theresa Ann Hankerson filed the action without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. She did not identify whether she was relying on federal-question or diversity jurisdiction. The court understood her complaint to assert constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and claims under state law.
Hankerson alleged that the “Unclaim Fund” and Citibank were withholding funds, inheritance information, and inherited gold. She also alleged that “State Capital” was trying to keep her inheritance and that Attorney Vicktor Brown had sabotaged litigation involving the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and a police-brutality case. She sought her inheritance and unclaimed funds and alleged injury to her reputation.
Legal standards
Because Hankerson proceeded without paying filing fees in advance, the court was required to dismiss the complaint, or any part of it, if it was frivolous or malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also had to dismiss claims over which it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear them. Although courts read filings by people without lawyers liberally, the complaint still had to provide enough facts to make a plausible claim for relief.
Claims seeking inherited assets
The court applied the probate exception to federal jurisdiction. That exception prevents a federal district court from administering an estate, probating a will, handling other purely probate matters, or reaching property held by a state court. To the extent Hankerson sought an order giving her assets she believed she inherited after a family member’s death, the court dismissed those claims because it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
Claims against Citibank and Attorney Brown
Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege both a violation of a federal right and action taken under color of state law. “Under color of state law” generally means using power provided by state law or acting as a state actor. The court described Citibank as a private bank and Brown as a private attorney. Because Hankerson alleged no facts showing that either acted as a state actor regarding her federal rights, the court dismissed the Section 1983 claims against Citibank and Brown for failure to state a claim.
Claims concerning unclaimed assets
The remaining defendants appeared to be New York State entities or officers. For purposes of the order, the court treated them as the State Comptroller because New York’s abandoned-property law directs claims for unclaimed assets to that office.
The court understood Hankerson to claim that the State Comptroller violated her procedural due-process rights. Procedural due process generally requires a meaningful opportunity to be heard before or after the government deprives someone of property, depending on the circumstances. The court explained that New York provides an administrative process for claiming unclaimed assets, an administrative hearing to challenge an initial decision, and judicial review in an Article 78 proceeding in New York Supreme Court, Albany County, after a final administrative decision.
Hankerson did not allege that she had filed an administrative claim, requested an administrative hearing, sought Article 78 review, or shown that those procedures were inadequate. The court therefore dismissed her Section 1983 due-process claims for failure to state a claim. The dismissal was without prejudice to her pursuing the identified state administrative and judicial remedies.
State-law claims
The court understood Hankerson’s state-law claims to rely on supplemental jurisdiction, which allows a federal court to hear related state-law claims in some circumstances. After dismissing all claims within its original federal jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.
Leave to amend and disposition
The court denied leave to amend because it concluded that the defects in the complaint could not be cured by amendment. Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action, directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment, and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. The court therefore denied Hankerson fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.