Barrett v. M&T Corporation

Background

Wayne A. Barrett, appearing without a lawyer, sued M&T Corporation, Erin Doerfler, Eric Manser, and Darren King. The complaint alleged violations of New York law and possibly federal law. The court had previously allowed Barrett to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.

Barrett alleged that, in April 2022, Eric Manser, acting as an authorized agent of M&T Bank, accepted a document Barrett described as a negotiable instrument. Barrett claimed that the document required Manser or M&T Bank to pay a specified amount or return the document if it was rejected. He alleged that the acceptance discharged the debt while M&T Bank continued to enforce the debt through foreclosure proceedings.

The document was labeled a “New Credit Agreement Security.” It stated that receiving it would discharge Barrett’s debt. Barrett also attached materials advancing theories about private banking, promissory notes, and using such documents to pay debts. He sought injunctive relief and damages of $36 million, an equivalent value in gold, or 36% of the document’s value over its existence.

The court noted that Barrett had previously brought a similar action involving a mortgage debt in an earlier proceeding in the Northern District of Georgia, No. 1:22-CV-2321. That court had concluded that a one-sided “New Credit Agreement” document did not discharge the mortgage debt and had identified other decisions rejecting similar theories.

Court’s analysis

Because Barrett was proceeding without paying filing fees in advance, the court was required to screen the complaint. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also had to dismiss claims over which it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read self-represented complaints generously, those complaints still must comply with the basic requirement to provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.

The court held that Barrett’s theory—that submitting his “note,” without actual payment, discharged his debt—was irrational and had no legal basis. It stated that this theory had been universally rejected and concluded that the complaint was frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint as frivolous. It denied Barrett leave to amend because the defects could not be cured by amendment. The court did not decide whether the earlier Northern District of Georgia decision separately barred Barrett’s claims. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.

The court also warned Barrett that, if he continued filing frivolous or meritless actions in that court, it might order him to explain why he should not be barred from filing future civil actions without paying filing fees unless the court granted permission.