Otis Bridgeforth v. TD Bank NA ( 2011 )

  • CLD-103                                                        NOT PRECEDENTIAL
                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                          No. 10-4003
                               OTIS MICHAEL BRIDGEFORTH,
                                    TD BANK;
                      KEN WILSON, District Supervisor, TD BANK;
                 CHRISTIANA SCHIAPPA, Teller Service Manager, TD Bank
                          Appeal from the United States District Court
                                   for the District of Delaware
                                  (D.C. Civil No. 10-cv-00499)
                          District Judge: Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
             Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B)
             or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
                                       January 28, 2011
                   Before: RENDELL, FUENTES and SMITH, Circuit Judges
                               (Opinion filed: February 15, 2011)
                                   OPINION OF THE COURT
           Otis Michael Bridgeforth filed a complaint pro se and in forma pauperis under 42
    U.S.C. § 1983, listing “race/color/sex” discrimination as his cause of action. In the body
    of his complaint, he alleged that on June 8, 2010, bank employees closed his recently
    opened student checking account. Attached to the complaint is a June 2, 2010 letter from
    the bank informing Bridgeforth that his account would be closed if the bank did not
    receive a signed signature form and opening deposit by June 14, 2010. Bridgeforth stated
    that, on June 4, 2010, he submitted a deposit (reflected on an attached bank statement)
    and the “important information documented on the new account form” (apparently
    including his signature, which appears on the attached document). For the “breached
    agreement” and “intentional infliction of emotional distress” that Bridgeforth purported to
    have suffered, he requested thirty million dollars in damages.
           The District Court dismissed Bridgeforth’s complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28
    U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and held that amendment would be futile. Bridgeforth appeals.
           We have jurisdiction over Bridgeforth’s appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
    exercise plenary review over the dismissal of his claims. See Allah v. Seiverling, 
    229 F.3d 220
    , 223 (3d Cir. 2000). We review the denial of leave to amend for abuse of
    discretion. See Lum v. Bank of Am., 
    361 F.3d 217
    , 223 (3d Cir. 2004).
           On review, we will dismiss Bridgeforth’s appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
    1915(e)(2)(B)(i) because it does not have an arguable basis in fact or law. See Neitzke v.
    490 U.S. 319
    , 325 (1989). As the District Court concluded, Bridgeforth could
    not sue the defendants under § 1983 because they are not state actors. See West v.
    487 U.S. 42
    , 48 (1988). Furthermore, Bridgeforth stated no plausible federal
    claim for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 
    129 S. Ct. 1937
    , 1950 (2009). Because
    Bridgeforth presented no actionable federal claim, the District Court did not err in
    declining to consider any state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); De Asencio v.
    Tyson Foods, Inc., 
    342 F.3d 301
    , 311 (3d Cir. 2003).
           In short, the District Court did not err in dismissing Bridgeforth’s complaint as
    frivolous. The District Court also did not abuse its discretion in denying Bridgeforth
    leave to amend on the basis of futility. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 
    293 F.3d 103
    , 112-13 (3d Cir. 2002). We will dismiss this appeal.