Michael Fernando Clark v. US Bancorp/U.S. Bank

Background

Pro se plaintiff Michael Fernando Clark filed this lawsuit in Minnesota state court against U.S. Bank, alleging that on January 25, 2022, he was denied banking services at a U.S. Bank branch in St. Paul, Minnesota on the basis of race. Clark asserted eight counts: (1) violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act (race discrimination); (2) violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (a federal civil rights statute prohibiting race discrimination in contracts); (3) violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C. § 1691); (4) violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; (5) constitutional violations brought via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (a federal statute allowing civil rights claims against those acting under color of state law — though the opinion does not address whether § 1983 applies to a private bank); (6) violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12182; (7) violation of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794; and (8) additional violations of the Minnesota Human Rights Act (Minn. Stat. §§ 363A.11, 363A.12, 363A.17).

On October 16, 2025, U.S. Bank removed the case from state court to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. U.S. Bank then moved to dismiss all claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted). Clark responded with an amended motion to remand the case back to state court.

Motion to Remand

Clark argued that remand was required because his claims raised no substantial federal question and there was no complete diversity of citizenship (meaning the parties were not citizens of different states, which is one way to establish federal jurisdiction). He characterized his complaint as relying solely on the Minnesota Human Rights Act and argued that any references to federal civil rights principles did not create federal jurisdiction.

The court applied the "well-pleaded complaint rule," under which federal question jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331) exists when a federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff's own complaint. The court found that Clark's complaint explicitly stated six causes of action based on federal statutes — not merely referenced federal principles — and that this was sufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction. The court cited Favors v. Comenity Cap. Bank, No. 18-cv-1857 (D. Minn. 2018) as persuasive precedent. The court also held that it had supplemental jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)) over Clark's state law Minnesota Human Rights Act claims because they arose from the same case or controversy as the federal claims. Accordingly, Clark's amended motion to remand was denied. The court noted it did not need to reach the question of diversity jurisdiction.

Motion to Dismiss

The court evaluated U.S. Bank's Rule 12(b)(6) motion under the familiar Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard: a complaint must contain enough facts to state a claim that is "plausible on its face," Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and must provide more than "naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement," Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). The court acknowledged that pro se complaints (those filed without a lawyer) are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys, citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), but noted that even pro se complaints must allege facts rather than bare legal conclusions.

The court quoted at length from Clark's complaint, which stated — in apparent template form with bracketed alternatives — that Clark attempted to "[open a bank account/ deposit a settlement check/ apply for credit/ conduct banking business]" and was "treated differently and denied services on the basis of race." Clark also alleged he suffers from "[mental health conditions. e.g., depression, PTSD, anxiety, agoraphobia]" that were exacerbated by the defendant's actions.

The court identified multiple deficiencies:

- Clark failed to allege any specific fact supporting any individual claim. - Clark did not identify which particular banking service U.S. Bank refused to provide. - Clark did not allege facts connecting any denial of service to race discrimination. - Clark did not allege facts showing he was treated differently than a similarly situated customer of another race. - Clark did not allege facts showing he was otherwise qualified or eligible for any service that was denied (such as a credit account). - Clark did not allege facts connecting any denial of service to his claimed mental health conditions.

Because the complaint consisted of only bald assertions that failed to put U.S. Bank on notice of the substance of any claim, the court granted U.S. Bank's motion to dismiss.

Disposition

The court denied Clark's amended motion to remand, granted U.S. Bank's motion to dismiss, and dismissed Clark's claims without prejudice. Dismissal without prejudice means Clark is not barred from refiling a complaint with sufficient factual allegations.