Utah v. TD Bank
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-10735
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Paul Utah v. TD Bank: Judge McMahon dismissed Utah’s pro se complaint as frivolous and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
Paul Utah’s complaint against TD Bank and Law Enforcement was dismissed as frivolous. The court also denied him permission to appeal without paying fees and warned that future fee-free filings could be restricted.
What happened
In Paul Utah v. TD Bank; Law Enforcement, Paul Utah, proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that TD Bank and law enforcement violated his human and civil rights. He described account closures, monitoring, profiling, harassment, investigations, and other conduct, and sought $15 million and court orders.
The court screened the complaint because Utah had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. It concluded that his allegations were irrational and had no legal basis, and that changing the complaint would not fix its problems. The court also warned that continued misuse of this filing privilege could lead to restrictions on future fee-free cases.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint as frivolous and denied Utah permission to appeal without paying fees, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Utah v. TD Bank · No. 1:19-cv-10735
- Colleen McMahon
- Dec. 4, 2019
Background
Paul Utah, identified in the opinion as a Queens resident, sued TD Bank and Law Enforcement. He proceeded without a lawyer and alleged “human rights violations” and “civil rights violations.” His allegations concerned events from January 1, 2012, through November 18, 2019, including alleged account closures, refusal to let him open another account, investigations, monitoring, racial profiling, rumors, emergency-button use, video recording, and harassment at TD Bank branches. He sought $15 million in damages and injunctive relief.
The court had previously allowed Utah to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. It therefore screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b), which require dismissal of certain complaints that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court said it had to read a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally and consider the strongest claims they suggested.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that Utah’s claims were frivolous. It stated that, even when read with the special consideration given to self-represented filings, the allegations were irrational and there was no legal theory on which Utah could rely. The court also determined that the defects could not be cured by an amended complaint, so it declined to give Utah permission to amend.
The opinion discussed Utah’s filing history, stating that he had filed seven cases in this court within three days and had sought permission to proceed without paying fees. It also referred to similar complaints filed in other federal courts. The court warned that continued abuse of this filing privilege could lead to an order requiring Utah to explain why he should not be barred from filing new civil actions without paying fees unless he first received permission.
Disposition
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed Utah’s complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The court certified under § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Utah, record service on the docket, and docket the matter as a written opinion.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.