Banks v. Dillion
- John Koeltl
- 1:21-cv-01302
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Banks v. Dillion/Dimon, Judge Koeltl dismissed the action because the amended complaint did not establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
Terence Wade Banks’s action against James Dillion/Dimon was dismissed, and Banks was denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.
What happened
In Banks v. Dillion/Dimon, Terence Wade Banks filed an action without a lawyer. The court had previously dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction but allowed him 30 days to amend his complaint.
Banks submitted an amended complaint, but the court said it still did not include enough facts showing that federal-question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction existed. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
Judge Koeltl dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Banks permission to proceed without paying the appeal filing fee.
The detailed version
- Banks v. Dillion · No. 1:21-cv-01302
- John Koeltl
- Apr. 30, 2021
Background
Terence Wade Banks brought this action without a lawyer. In an order dated April 5, 2021, the court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court concluded it lacked legal authority to hear the case. The court gave Banks 30 days to file an amended complaint alleging facts that would show the court could exercise jurisdiction.
Amended Complaint and Jurisdiction
The court received Banks’s amended complaint on April 15, 2021. It concluded that the amended complaint still did not allege sufficient facts to establish either federal-question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. The opinion does not identify the claims Banks attempted to bring.
Ruling
The court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The order does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal. Judge John G. Koeltl signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.