Section 1654 “does not permit plaintiffs to appear 8 pro se where interests other than their own are at stake”
How later courts described this case
- Section 1654 “does not permit plaintiffs to appear 8 pro se where interests other than their own are at stake”
- a layperson acting in pro per may not 13 appear or seek relief on behalf of others
- “courts have routinely 3 adhered to the general rule prohibiting pro se plaintiffs from pursuing claims on 4 behalf of others in a representative capacity”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 5 WOMEN IN OAKLAND Case No. 2:20-cv-00665-ODW (GJS)
CALIFORNIA HOUSE;
12 FREDERICK BANKS, as next ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
friend thereto; WITCHCRAFT
13 RIDDLER; & BLACK MAGICK
BEARS CULT,
14
Petitioners
15
v.
16
WEDGWOOD PROPERTY CO., et
17 al.,
18 Respondents.
19
20
21 On January 22, 2020, a putative 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition was filed in
22 this District [Dkt. 1, “Petition”]. The Petition was filed by Frederick Banks, a
23 convicted criminal incarcerated in Allegheny County Jail in Pittsburgh,
24 Pennsylvania. Banks purports to be acting as “next friend” on behalf of “5 Women
25 in Oakland California House,” “Witchcraft Riddler,” and “Black Magick Bears
26 Cult.” The only person who has signed the Petition is Banks, who mailed the
27 Petition to the Court from Allegheny County Jail and who seeks leave to proceed on
28 an in forma pauperis basis.
1 The Petition names as Respondents: Wedgwood Property Co.; the Central
2 Intelligence Agency (“CIA”); “County Sheriff” (no county specified); Gina Haspel;
3 Michael Atkinson, I.G.; and the House Intelligence Committee. The Petition raises
4 a single claim. Banks alleges that the CIA placed the Petitioners “under a FISA
5 warrant & FISA electronic surveillance using ‘Microwave Hearing’ Technology,”
6 which caused an “illegal eviction order to be lodged” against the Petitioners in
7 Oakland, California. Banks alleges that the CIA’s action violated 50 U.S.C. § 1801
8 et seq. As relief, Banks asks the Court to: “Discharge petitioners from FISA
9 electronic surveillance & restraint”; enjoin the CIA from further “manipulation of
10 petitioners”; and enjoin Respondents and unspecified “others” from evicting
11 Petitioners.1
12 Banks is not a stranger to this District, nor to District and Circuit Courts across
13 the United States. As the Court previously has noted (see, e.g., Case No. 5:19-cv-
14 00780-ODW (GJS), Dkt. 3; Case No. 2:19-cv-08514-ODW (GJS), Dkt. 3), Banks is
15 a well-known bringer of frivolous lawsuits across the country. Pursuant to Rule 201
16 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court has taken judicial notice of the federal
17 court case dockets and filings available through the PACER and Westlaw systems
18 relating to Banks, which show (without a precise count) many, many hundreds (if
19 not well over 1,000) of federal court proceedings initiated by Banks over the past
20 decade.
21 While Banks has a prior criminal history that the Court will not recount here, it
22 is significant that, recently, Banks was tried by jury in the United States District
23 Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and was found guilty of multiple
24 counts of wire fraud and one count of aggravated identity theft on November 8,
25
26
1 Banks asserts separately that the CIA recently used this same “Microwave Hearing”
27 technology to “remotely kill” the drummer for the band Rush and to down a Ukrainian airliner
carrying 130 “Iranian-Canadians,” which Banks labels as an act of war against Canada. Banks,
28
however, does not appear to seek habeas relief on this basis.
1 2019. Banks is awaiting sentencing, which is scheduled for Spring 2020, and
2 remains in custody. See Docket in Case No. 2:15-cr-00168 (W.D. Pa.). Banks also
3 is “a notorious frequent filer” in the federal court system, who has had hundreds of
4 cases dismissed at the pleading stage as frivolous. Banks v. Song, No. 1:17-cv-
5 00339 (D. Haw. July 25, 2017) (Order Dismissing Action and Denying In Forma
6 Pauperis Application); see also Banks v. Cuevas, No. 4:17CV2460, 2018 WL
7 1942192, at *1 (N.D. Ohio April 25, 2018) (describing Banks as a “frequent filer of
8 frivolous actions in federal and state courts”); Banks v. Song, No. 17-00093, 2018
9 WL 3130940, at *1-*2 (D. Guam Jun. 26, 2018) (finding lawsuit filed by Banks
10 related to his Western District of Pennsylvania prosecution that essentially was the
11 same suit that he had filed in a number of other Districts in the United States to be
12 “malicious” and improperly filed in the District of Guam); Banks v. New York
13 Police Dept., No. 4:15-CV-75-RLW, 2015 WL 1414828, at *2-*3 (E.D. Mo. Mar.
14 26, 2015) (dismissing as legally frivolous and malicious mandamus action brought
15 by Banks seeking relief based upon, inter alia, the deaths of Eric Garner and
16 Michael Brown).
17 When federal courts began dismissing Banks’s civil cases under 28 U.S.C. §
18 1915(g) due to his numerous “strikes,” he began filing 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or other
19 types of petitions in an attempt to avoid the Section 1915(g) limitation on his ability
20 to file actions without prepayment of the filing fee. See Banks v. Valaluka, No.
21 1:15-cv-01935 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 18, 2015) (Order denying leave to proceed in forma
22 pauperis and dismissing purported mandamus action).) As one District Court
23 described him:
24 Banks is a well-established, multi-district, frequent filer,
who has brought over 350 cases in the Northern District
25 of Ohio, the District of Massachusetts, the Southern
District of Mississippi, the District of Columbia, the
26
Southern District of New York, the Western District of
27 New York, the District of Colorado, the District of
Arizona, the Southern District of Florida, the Middle
28 District of Florida, the Eastern District of North Carolina,
1 Eastern District of Missouri, the Eastern District of New
2 Jersey, the Eastern District of Arkansas, the Western
District of Oklahoma, the District of Utah, and the
3 District of Alaska. All of these cases were dismissed as
frivolous. He has been declared to be subject to three
4 strike provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) on numerous
occasions. Undeterred, Banks utilizes § 2241 to
5
circumvent the application of § 1915(g).
6
Banks v. Greene, No. 4:18-cv-0884, 2018 WL 4615938, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Ohio, Sept.
7 25, 2018).2
8
In addition to numerous courts having found Banks’s case-initiating filings to be
9
frivolous, Banks has been designated as a vexatious litigant. See, e.g., Banks v.
10
Pope Francis, No. 2:15-cv-01400 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 8, 2015) (Order designating
11
Petitioner as a vexatious litigant). That vexatious litigant designation has been
12
ordered extended to cover filings made by Banks on behalf of any other persons,
13
whether as a purported “next friend” or otherwise, unless and until he has complied
14
with the requirements of the original vexatious litigant designation order. See
15
United States v. Miller, 726 Fed. App’x 107 (June 7, 2018) (affirming district court
16
order so extending scope of vexatious litigant order entered against Banks).
17
As even the most cursory review of his cases available through the PACER
18
system shows, Banks has a history of filing delusional and meritless actions on his
19
own behalf or on behalf of others with whom he has no connection, often (as here)
20
alleging electronic surveillance by the CIA or others. See, e.g., Banks v. Crooked
21
Hilary, No. 2:16-cv-07954 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2016) (Order denying leave to
22
proceed in forma pauperis and discussing some of the prior decisions finding
23
Petitioner’s actions to be frivolous and delusional); Schlemmer v. Central
24
Intelligence Agency, No. 2:15-cv-01583 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 15, 2015) (Order dismissing
25
26 2 Banks also has filed a number of actions in this District that have been summarily
dismissed as frivolous. See Case Nos.: 2:15-cv-04225-ODW (GJSx); 2:16-cv-05544-JAK (KSx);
27 2:16-cv-07398-R (JPSx); 2:16-cv-07954-ODW (GJS); 2:17-cv-05412-GW (JPRx); 5:18-cv-
00526-ODW (GJS); 5:19-cv-00780-ODW (GJS); 2:19-cv-06748-JAK (JC); 2:19-cv-07428-ODW
28
(GJS); 2:19-cv-08514-ODW (GJS); and 2:19-cv-10468-ODW (GJS).
1 with prejudice a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition filed by Petitioner as purported
2 “next friend” on behalf of a criminal defendant with whom he had no relationship);
3 Valaluka, supra (Order at 2: “Banks has not limited his frivolous filings to cases he
4 files in his own name, but has expanded his efforts by filing cases and motions on
5 behalf of other prisoners, often without their knowledge or consent.”). The instant
6 Petition is yet one more in his ongoing series of vexatious and improper litigation.
7 The claim alleged in the Petition is facially frivolous but particularly so to the
8 extent that it purports to be raised under the guise of a habeas action.3 No
9 cognizable and viable theory of habeas relief has been stated as to anyone, much
10 less as to the named Petitioners on whose behalf this habeas petition purportedly is
11 brought, none of whom appear to be in custody in the United States.4 There is no
12 habeas relief that any federal court could provide anyone based on the allegations of
13 the Petition. The matters alleged in the Petition simply do not involve situations in
14 which 28 U.S.C. § 2241 federal habeas jurisdiction properly can be invoked.
15 An equally critical, and obvious, defect in the Petition is that Banks has no right
16 or standing to seek habeas or any other type of relief as a representative acting on
17 behalf of anyone. There is no evidence before the Court that any of the named
18 Petitioners possibly would wish to have Banks – a pro se vexatious litigant and
19 convicted criminal awaiting sentencing, with a documented longstanding history of
20 filing utterly frivolous and delusional actions – act as his or her or its legal
21 representative in seeking any relief in federal courts. Indeed, no rational or sane
22 reason exists to believe that this is the case.
23 Apart from the factually frivolous nature of Banks’s assertion that he is entitled
24 to act on behalf of the named Petitioners, his attempt to do so is legally frivolous.
25
26 3 The claim also is factually and legally frivolous within the meaning of Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-22 (1989), and Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
27
4 Unlike in some of his other purported habeas actions, Banks here is appearing solely in his
28
status as an asserted “next friend” for the named Petitioners. [Petition at 1.]
1 Generally, non-lawyers may not represent other persons in court. See, e.g., Simon v.
2 Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008) (“courts have routinely
3 adhered to the general rule prohibiting pro se plaintiffs from pursuing claims on
4 behalf of others in a representative capacity”); Collinsgru v. Palmyra Bd. Of Educ.,
5 161 F.3d 225, 232 (3d Cir. 1998). 28 U.S.C. § 1654 permits persons to appear on a
6 pro se basis only in their “own cases personally.” See Shephard v. Wellman, 313
7 F.3d 963, 970 (6th Cir. 2002) (Section 1654 “does not permit plaintiffs to appear
8 pro se where interests other than their own are at stake”). Local Rule 83-2.10.2
9 expressly prohibits a pro se litigant from delegating his representation to any other
10 person. Because Banks is not a lawyer authorized to practice in this Court, he may
11 not pursue relief on behalf of anyone else. See C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United
12 States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987) (a layperson acting in pro per may not
13 appear or seek relief on behalf of others). Banks has been told this time and time
14 again yet persists in bringing purported, and plainly improper, habeas actions on
15 behalf of others, further proving his inappropriateness to act as a representative of
16 anyone else.
17 While Banks asserts that he is acting as the “next friend” of the named
18 Petitioners, next friend status “is by no means granted automatically to whomever
19 seeks to pursue an action on behalf of another.” Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S.
20 149, 163 (1990). There are two “‘firmly rooted prerequisites’” that must be met
21 before a next friend can be appointed: (1) the putative next friend must provide an
22 adequate explanation, such as mental incompetence or other disability, regarding
23 why the real party in interest cannot appear on his own behalf; and (2) the putative
24 next friend must be “‘truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on whose
25 behalf he seeks to litigate,’” which requires the existence of a “‘significant
26 relationship’” between the two persons. Dennis ex rel. Butko v. Budge, 378 F.3d
27 880, 888 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). The burden of establishing these two
28 requirements is on the putative next friend. Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 164. Because the
1 standing of a next friend is a jurisdictional issue, the Court lacks jurisdiction if these
2 requirements are not satisfied. Id.; see also Dennis, 378 F.3d at 888 n.5.
3 The Petition fails entirely to satisfy these requirements. Although Banks states
4 that he is entitled to act as the “next friend” for the named Petitioners, he proffers no
5 explanation of why, and none appears possible. The second Whitmore requirement
6 also plainly is not, and cannot be, satisfied. There is no declaration or other
7 evidence before the Court indicating that Banks has a “significant relationship” with
8 any of the named Petitioners, much less that Banks is truly dedicated to their
9 interests. As Banks is not a lawyer and has a long history of filing baseless and
10 nonsensical lawsuits, there is no basis for finding that he will be able to provide
11 these Petitioners – or indeed anybody – with adequate representation in a habeas
12 proceeding or any other type of proceeding, and his litigation history indicates
13 precisely the opposite, namely, summary dismissal after summary dismissal of the
14 actions he brings. Moreover, Banks is incarcerated in a Pennsylvania jail and is
15 awaiting sentencing on his federal criminal conviction, and he lacks the physical and
16 financial means to pursue this action on anyone’s behalf. Significantly, with the
17 Petition, Banks has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis in which he
18 states that he has no money.
19 “[I]ndividuals not licensed to practice law by the state may not use the ‘next
20 friend’ device as an artifice for the unauthorized practice of law.” Weber v. Garza,
21 570 F.2d 511, 514 (5th Cir. 1978). Banks, an unlicensed, lay incarcerated person,
22 may not represent anyone else in this Court or elsewhere, nor may he sign pleadings
23 or receive court documents on behalf of anyone else. There is no basis for finding
24 that Banks may bring and pursue this habeas action on behalf of any other person,
25 whether as their “next friend” or otherwise. Plainly, he lacks standing to do so. As
26 a result, jurisdiction is lacking and the Petition must be dismissed.
27 ///
28 ///
1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: the Petition is dismissed; and Judgment
2 || shall be entered dismissing this action.
4 || DATED: _January 29, 2020
5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7 || Submitted by:
8
9
10 || GAIL J. STANDISH
4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28