Luckert v. Wells Fargo Bank

Background

Michael Landon Luckert, who represented himself, sued Wells Fargo Bank and Angela Gora. He sought his deceased mother’s property, proceeds from the sale of her house, possible rental income, funds in her bank accounts, and the value of her stock holdings. Luckert alleged that Gora prevented him from caring for or contacting his hospitalized mother before her death, took his inheritance afterward, and did not respond to his attempts to contact her. He also alleged that Wells Fargo helped sell the house, possessed finances that should have gone to him, and refused to provide information without an official copy of his mother’s death certificate.

Fee Application and Screening

Luckert applied to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying court fees or security in advance. The court found that his financial affidavit met the economic eligibility requirement and granted the application.

The court then screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Screening is the court’s early review of a complaint filed by a person allowed to proceed without paying fees. The court explained that it must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from an immune defendant. It also noted that self-represented complaints are read liberally, but they still must provide enough factual matter to support a plausible claim and a basis for federal jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction Analysis

Luckert asserted federal-question jurisdiction and cited 25 U.S.C. § 2206, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 71.1, and 26 C.F.R. § 1.856-10. The court concluded that Luckert did not explain how 25 U.S.C. § 2206 applied to the people or property involved in the case or created a claim for relief. It further explained that Rule 71.1 concerns proceedings to condemn property through eminent domain, while the cited tax regulation defines real property for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code. The court concluded that these authorities did not create a private claim or a federal question supporting jurisdiction.

The court also found that Luckert had not established diversity jurisdiction. Although he alleged that the property was worth $1,800,000, the court found no supporting facts and said a bare statement about the amount in controversy was insufficient. Luckert also did not allege facts about the defendants’ citizenship, so the court could not determine whether the parties were citizens of different states.

Rulings

The court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear the case, and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Luckert was ordered to file an amended complaint by September 23, 2025. The amended complaint must comply with Rule 8(a) by briefly stating the basis for federal jurisdiction, the facts showing entitlement to relief, and the requested relief.

The court also addressed Luckert’s discovery-related motion seeking to require defendants to respond to discovery requests. It denied the motion as moot because the defendants had not yet been properly served. The provided opinion text identifies Luckert’s separate motion for an extension of time to submit a case-management statement, but the excerpt does not show the court’s disposition of that motion. The court vacated the initial case-management conference.