Suarez v. Capital One Bank NA/FC
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-00568
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Suarez v. Capital One, Judge Swain dismissed Suarez’s complaint, denied mandamus relief and outstanding motions, and denied fee-free appeal status.
Joel Horta Suarez and the three defendant banks—Capital One Bank NA/FC, Santander Bank NA (USA), and Bank of America NA/Corp. The order also affects Suarez’s ability to pursue a fee-free appeal and warns that future fee-free filings could require prior permission.
What happened
In Suarez v. Capital One Bank NA/FC, Joel Horta Suarez, representing himself, sued three banks over what he described as improperly denied tax refunds and rejected payment orders. He sought $100 million and relied on numerous federal and state laws.
The court found that the complaint mainly contained legal citations and conclusions, without enough facts to show a valid federal claim. It also found that Suarez had not plausibly shown the required amount for diversity jurisdiction. Because the federal claims were dismissed, the court declined to consider any state-law claims.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint, declined to allow another amendment, denied mandamus relief, and denied all outstanding motions. The court also denied fee-free status for an appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Suarez v. Capital One Bank NA/FC · No. 1:22-cv-00568
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 7, 2022
Background
Joel Horta Suarez filed the action without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees. He sued Capital One Bank, Santander Bank, and Bank of America. He alleged that the banks refused to help him collect tax refunds he said had been withheld by the Internal Revenue Service, including by rejecting payment orders and other financial instruments.
The complaint cited various federal regulations, federal statutes, the Federal Reserve Operating Circular No. 3, and the Uniform Commercial Code. It also referred to claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, antitrust provisions, and a request for mandamus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Suarez alleged $100 million in damages and filed additional motions, including requests for $500,000 in preliminary relief.
Mandamus relief
The court denied Suarez’s request for mandamus relief. Mandamus is an extraordinary court order requiring a federal officer, employee, or agency to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff. The court explained that Suarez had not sued a federal officer, employee, or agency and had not shown a clear and indisputable right to the relief requested.
Federal claims
Because Suarez was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court was required to dismiss the complaint if it was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought relief from an immune defendant. The court also had to dismiss the action if it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the case.
The court held that the complaint failed to state a federal claim. It was not a short and plain statement of the facts supporting relief; instead, it consisted largely of legal citations and conclusory assertions. The court could not determine what specific claims Suarez intended to bring against the defendants, and the complaint did not provide facts plausibly showing that the banks violated federal law or discriminated against him.
Diversity and supplemental jurisdiction
The court also concluded that it appeared to lack diversity jurisdiction. Although Suarez alleged that he and the defendants were citizens of different states, he did not provide facts plausibly showing that the amount in controversy exceeded the required $75,000. The court found that the $100 million demand had no obvious connection to the allegations.
Because the federal claims were dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims—over any state-law claims Suarez might have intended to assert.
Amendment and disposition
The court declined to give Suarez another opportunity to amend the complaint, finding that the defects could not be cured by further amendment. It also warned that further duplicative or meritless litigation could lead to an order barring him from filing new actions without paying filing fees unless he first received permission.
The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims, and denied all outstanding motions. It certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Suarez permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.