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

Background

Michael Fernando Clark originally brought this action pro se in state court in September 2025. U.S. Bank removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss. On December 19, 2025, the court granted that motion, denied Clark’s motion to remand, and dismissed Clark’s claims without prejudice. The court found that Clark’s original pleading contained only unsupported assertions and did not provide enough facts to make his claims plausible or to notify U.S. Bank of their substance. Judgment was entered on December 22, 2025, and the case was closed.

On January 5, 2026, Clark filed an amended complaint. He alleged that, on January 25, 2022, he went to a U.S. Bank branch in St. Paul, Minnesota, to open a checking account and deposit a $116,855.61 settlement check. He alleged that he presented valid identification and a legitimate check, but bank employees refused to accept it, subjected him to heightened scrutiny, and denied him service because of his race. He asserted claims for race discrimination in contracting under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act.

Parties’ Positions

U.S. Bank moved to strike the amended complaint as procedurally improper. It also argued, alternatively, that the amended complaint should be dismissed because it did not provide fair notice of a plausible claim.

Clark argued that filing the amended complaint was proper because the prior dismissal was without prejudice, indicating that the pleading problems could be corrected. He also argued that procedural defects should be excused because he was representing himself and U.S. Bank had not shown prejudice.

Court’s Analysis

The court relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), which allows a court to strike improper material from a pleading, including a pleading amended in violation of court rules. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), a party generally must obtain the court’s permission before amending a complaint after the relevant period for amendment as of right. The District of Minnesota’s Local Rule 15.1 also requires a separate motion to amend, a copy of the proposed amended complaint, and a red-lined version showing the changes.

The court held that Clark’s right to amend under Rule 15(a) ended when the court dismissed the original complaint. Clark had not moved for permission to amend, submitted a proposed amended complaint, or followed Local Rule 15.1. The court further held that Clark’s self-represented status did not restore his right to amend or excuse compliance with the procedural rules.

Because the court struck the amended complaint, it did not decide U.S. Bank’s alternative argument that the amended complaint failed to state a claim. In a footnote, the court stated that U.S. Bank’s alternative arguments appeared to have merit: the Minnesota Human Rights Act claim appeared untimely, and the federal claims appeared to lack concrete allegations of discriminatory intent or facts showing different treatment from a similarly situated customer of another race.

Disposition

Judge Donovan W. Frank granted U.S. Bank’s motion to strike the amended complaint and struck the amended complaint. The court stated that, because the prior dismissal was without prejudice, Clark remained free to replead his claims in a new lawsuit.