Hankerson v. FDIC
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-01157
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Hankerson v. FDIC, Judge Swain dismissed Theresa Ann Hankerson’s fee-waived action as frivolous because its allegations lacked factual support.
Theresa Ann Hankerson and the defendants named in her action; the case was dismissed, and fee-free status was denied for any appeal.
What happened
In Hankerson v. FDIC, Theresa Ann Hankerson sued the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and several other listed defendants. She alleged that the FDIC and Bank of America withheld scholarship or financial-aid money, interfered with a bank account, and scammed her, but she did not explain what relief she wanted.
The court reviewed her complaint because she had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees. It found that her allegations were conclusions and suspicions without factual support and dismissed the action as frivolous. The court also declined to let her amend the complaint because it found that the defects could not be fixed.
Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing the action. She also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Hankerson v. FDIC · No. 1:24-cv-01157
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 15, 2024
Background
Theresa Ann Hankerson, appearing without a lawyer, filed an action against the FDIC; “Orgatime Banking”; “Social Security,” which the court understood to mean the Social Security Administration; “Violation of Human Rights”; “Insur.”; “Hospital”; and “61 pct ext.,” which the court understood to mean the New York City Police Department’s 61st Precinct. The complaint did not specify whether Hankerson relied on federal-question or diversity jurisdiction, and it did not state what relief she sought.
Hankerson alleged that the FDIC told Bank of America not to open an account for her, withheld scholarship and financial-aid money connected to an online course, interfered with her education, and had been “scamming” her. The complaint did not include allegations about any defendant other than the FDIC. Bank of America was not named as a defendant.
Legal standard
Because Hankerson had been granted permission to proceed without paying filing fees, the court was required to dismiss the complaint if it was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally valid claim, or sought money from a defendant protected from such relief. The court also was required to read a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally and consider the strongest claims suggested by the complaint.
A claim is factually frivolous when its allegations are clearly baseless, fanciful, fantastic, or delusional, or when it lacks a reasonable basis in fact or law. The court stated that a plaintiff’s beliefs, even strongly held beliefs, are not facts without factual support.
Court’s ruling
The court found that Hankerson provided no factual basis for her assertions about the FDIC, Bank of America, scholarship funds, financial aid, or alleged scams. It concluded that her allegations were conclusory suspicions, lacked a plausible factual foundation, and rose to the level of the irrational. The court therefore dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
The court declined to grant leave to amend because it appeared that the defects could not be cured by amendment. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing the action.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.