Banks v. Dillion

Background

Terence Wade Banks, who was incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility and proceeding without a lawyer, brought an action described as arising under “banking law.” He sued James Dillion, whom the opinion also refers to as “Dimon,” and sought $100,000 in damages.

Banks alleged that a $750 Social Security check was deposited into his Chase checking account on October 2, 2019. The next day, a Chase representative told him that the account balance was zero but confirmed that the check had been deposited. Banks believed someone had stolen the money. He complained to Chase, later wrote to a Chase manager, and then wrote to Dillion; he alleged that the manager and Dillion ignored him. Banks said the loss prevented him from paying bills and caring for his elderly mother.

Jurisdiction analysis

The court explained that federal district courts generally have jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law or over state-law claims between citizens of different states when more than $75,000 is in controversy.

The court found that Banks alleged no facts showing that his claims arose under federal law. The court then considered diversity jurisdiction, which requires complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. Banks did not identify his or Dillion’s citizenship. Although he claimed $100,000, the court found that he provided no facts supporting that amount in damages for the alleged theft of $750.

Disposition

The court dismissed Banks’s action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It granted Banks 30 days to file an amended complaint clearly alleging facts showing that the court may exercise jurisdiction over his claims. The court stated that, if Banks does not file an amended complaint within that period, it will enter judgment dismissing the action. Judge John G. Koeltl signed the order.