ANTHONIA OR H WASHINGTON v. BANK OF AMERICA

Background

ANTHONIA OR H WASHINGTON, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Bank of America. She alleged that the bank failed to service her account, which prevented her from accessing funds. She further alleged that this led to her defaulting on an agreement to purchase farmland in Clearlake, California, and prevented her from paying bail for her boyfriend with a check she received from an attorney.

Because Washington had been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court screened the complaint before service under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). That statute requires dismissal if the complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks money from a defendant immune from such relief. The court applied the same failure-to-state-a-claim standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and was required to read Washington’s self-represented pleadings liberally.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The court explained that federal courts have limited jurisdiction. Federal-question jurisdiction requires a claim arising under federal law. Diversity jurisdiction requires that the parties be citizens of different states and that the amount in dispute exceed $75,000.

Washington asserted federal-question jurisdiction based on the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, arguing that Bank of America is insured by the United States. The court held that the Act does not provide a private right of action for individuals allegedly harmed by an institution’s noncompliance with the Act. It therefore did not provide a basis for federal-question jurisdiction.

Washington also asserted diversity jurisdiction because she was requesting $75,000. The court assumed, without deciding, that Washington and Bank of America were diverse parties. It nevertheless found that she had not alleged facts satisfying the amount-in-controversy requirement. The claimed damages had to exceed $75,000, and when a plaintiff seeks to protect an interest in property, the present value of that interest must exceed $75,000. Washington alleged that the land at issue was worth $9,000 to $10,000.

Ruling

Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin found no basis for federal-question or diversity jurisdiction and dismissed this action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court denied further leave to amend, finding that Washington had already been given an opportunity to amend her complaint and that another amendment would be futile. The Clerk was instructed to close the file.