HOWARD v. FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD OF GOVERNORS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

STANLEY HOWARD, :

Plaintiff, :

:

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 23-CV-5079

:

FEDERAL RESERVE :

BOARD OF GOVERNORS, et al., :

Defendants. :

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Goldberg, J. April 24, 2024

Currently before the Court is a Complaint (“Compl.” (ECF No. 2)) filed by Plaintiff Stanley

Howard, a self-represented litigant, asserting claims against the Federal Reserve Board of

Governors (“Board”), the Federal Reserve Bank, and “Member Banks.” (Id. at 1.) Howard has

also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1) and a Motion for

Summary Judgment (ECF No. 4 at 8-10).1 For the following reasons, the Court will grant Howard

leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss his Complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS2

Howard’s pro se Complaint is not entirely clear, but his claims appear to be connected to

the use and purpose of a Social Security number. He alleges that social security numbers are not

to be used for identification purposes but are only federal account numbers. (Compl. at 3.) He

avers that when a lender uses an individual’s Social Security number as personal identification and

1 The Motion for Summary Judgment is included with a series of documents docketed as “Exhibits.”

(See ECF No. 4 at 8-10.) The Clerk of Court will be directed to separately docket these pages as “Plaintiff’s

Motion for Summary Judgment.” Considering the disposition of Howard’s Complaint, the Motion for

Summary Judgment will be denied as moot.

2 The factual allegations are taken from Howard’s Complaint. (ECF No. 2.) The Court adopts the

pagination supplied by the CM/ECF docketing system.

for purposes of creditworthiness, this may result in unfair credit treatment “by holding a card

holder responsible for an interest-bearing debt that is not actually the card holders, simply because

their social security number is legally subrogated with another account number.”3 (Id.) He also

refers to consumer fraud. (Id. at 2, 3.)

Howard alleges that the Board oversees the operations of the twelve Federal Reserve

Banks, and that the Board and Federal Reserve Banks are responsible for supervising and

regulating financial institutions and activities. (Id. at 4.) He further alleges that the Board has

encouraged the use of assigned Social Security numbers as identification and has committed

constructive fraud by making deceptive statements or remaining silent regarding a Social Security

account holder, which Howard alleges creates a false impression of the account holder and results

in financial injury. (Id.) Howard avers that the Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank and its Member

Banks have engaged in consumer fraud and identity theft by treating a bank customer’s Social

Security number as personal identification. (Id. at 4-5.) Howard contends that he is making a

claim in equity as the legal titleholder to his assigned Social Security number with a contractual

right to a monthly payment and demands that the Court require the Defendants to provide him with

honest service.4 (Id. at 5.) He also sets forth a claim for violation of his Fifth Amendment rights,

and a claim pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 242 against the Board. 5 (Id. at 5.) He asks that the Court

3 The Court infers that Howard is referring to a credit check.

4 Howard may be seeking to challenge a miscalculation or denial of his Social Security benefits.

District Courts have jurisdiction to review final decisions of the Commissioner of Social Security under 42

U.S.C. § 405(g). Any request for review, however, must be brought against the Commissioner of Social

Security in a new civil action.

5 Criminal statutes, including 18 U.S.C. § 242, generally do not give rise to a basis for civil liability.

See Brown v. City of Philadelphia Office of Human Res., 735 F. App’x 55, 56 (3d Cir. 2018) (per curiam)

(“Brown alleges that the defendants violated various criminal statutes [including § 242], but most do not

provide a private cause of action.”).

order the Defendants to provide honest service and refrain from “limit[ing] the generality of the

term money.” (Id. at 6.)

Howard also filed Exhibits to his Complaint. (ECF Nos. 4, 5.) The first set of Exhibits

includes a form of Order granting the relief requested in the Complaint (ECF No. 4 at 2), a

document Howard titles “U.S. Dollar Electronic Money” in which Howard purports to explain the

difference between physical notes and electronic accounts and the role of the Federal Reserve in

administering the banking industry (id. at 4-5), and a document titled “Certificate to Substantiate

Fact” in which Howard seeks to “induce” the Board, through FDIC insured banks, to insure Social

Security accounts. (id. at 6-7). The second set of Exhibits includes a document titled “Lawsuit in

Law is the Recovery of a Right or Claim,” in which Howard seeks to describe the nature of a legal

claim. (ECF No. 5 at 2-3.) He again references 18 U.S.C. § 242. (Id.) Howard also includes a

document in which he purports to explain how funds are transferred between banks and into and

out of individual accounts. (Id. at 4-6.) The documents included in the Exhibits do not assert

claims or otherwise clarify the nature of Howard’s claims as set forth in his Complaint.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court will grant Howard leave to proceed in forma pauperis because it appears that he

is unable to pay the required filing fee. Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) requires the

Court to dismiss the Complaint if it is “frivolous.” A complaint is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable

basis either in law or in fact,” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), and is legally baseless

if it is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.” Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080,

1085 (3d Cir. 1995). Additionally, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) requires the Court to dismiss the

Complaint if it fails to state a claim. Whether a complaint fails to state a claim under §

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), see Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999),

which requires the Court to determine whether the complaint contains “sufficient factual matter,

accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted); Talley v. Wetzel, 15 F.4th 275, 286 n.7 (3d Cir. 2021).

“At this early stage of the litigation,’ ‘[the Court will] accept the facts alleged in [the pro

se] complaint as true,’ ‘draw[] all reasonable inferences in [the plaintiff’s] favor,’ and ‘ask only

whether [that] complaint, liberally construed, . . . contains facts sufficient to state a plausible []

claim.’” Shorter v. United States, 12 F.4th 366, 374 (3d Cir. 2021) (quoting Perez v. Fenoglio,

792 F.3d 768, 774, 782 (7th Cir. 2015)). Conclusory allegations do not suffice. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

at 678. As Howard is proceeding pro se, the Court construes his allegations liberally. Vogt v.

Wetzel, 8 F.4th 182, 185 (3d Cir. 2021) (citing Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239,

244-45 (3d Cir. 2013)).

Section 1915 also requires the dismissal of claims for monetary relief brought against a

defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii); Rauso v.

Giambrone, 782 F. App’x 99, 101 (3d Cir. 2019) (per curium) (holding that § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii)

“explicitly states that a court shall dismiss a case ‘at any time’ where the action seeks monetary

relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief”). Moreover, “if the court determines

at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

III. DISCUSSION

Article III of the Constitution limits the power of the federal judiciary to the resolution of

cases and controversies. Sprint Commc’ns Co., L.P. v. APCC Servs., Inc., 554 U.S. 269, 273

(2008). “That case-or-controversy requirement is satisfied only where a plaintiff has standing.”

Id. Standing is a “threshold” issue. Wayne Land & Min. Grp., LLC v. Delaware River Basin

Comm’n, 959 F.3d 569, 573-74 (3d Cir. 2020). “It is an ‘irreducible constitutional minimum,’

without which a court would not have jurisdiction to pass on the merits of the action.” Id.

Consequently, federal courts must raise the issue of standing sua sponte. Id. If a litigant does not

meet the standing requirements, the case must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 88-89 (1998). The plaintiff bears the

burden of establishing standing. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016).

“[T]he irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements.” Lujan v.

Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). First, the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury

in fact” that is “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent, not conjectural or

hypothetical.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). Second, there must be a “causal connection

between the injury and the conduct complained of” such that the injury is fairly traceable to the

defendant’ s conduct. Id. Third, it must be likely that the plaintiff’s injury will be redressed by a

favorable decision. Id. at 561; see also Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016)

(explaining that the “irreducible constitutional minimum of standing” requires the plaintiff to

“have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the

defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision”).

Howard’s Complaint suffers from several deficiencies, the most significant being his

failure to allege that he has suffered any injury as a result of the conduct alleged. Howard’s

allegations describe an alleged practice among banking institutions to associate bank customers’

Social Security numbers with bank accounts or use Social Security numbers as personal

identification. (Compl. at 3-5.) According to Howard, this is not the intended purpose of a Social

Security number and can result in financial injury or consumer fraud. However, Howard does not

allege that the Defendants have associated his Social Security number with any account or used

his Social Security number as personal identification, and that he suffered injury as a result.

Moreover, Howard’s Complaint does not include factual allegations describing any injuries

he has sustained as a result of the practices that he describes. He also does not request an award

of money damages, only a request that the Court require the Defendants to provide “honest service”

and refrain from “limit[ing] the generality of the term money.” (Compl at 6.) He does not explain

how this relief would bring an end to the practices described. To the extent Howard is attempting

to address a general grievance, he has not stated a case or controversy over which this Court has

jurisdiction. See Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437, 439 (2007) (per curiam) (“[A] plaintiff raising

only a generally available grievance about government—claiming only harm to his and every

citizen’ s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no

more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large—does not state an Article

III case or controversy.” (quotations omitted)).

Howard has failed to set forth an injury, much less an injury caused by the named

Defendants. Moreover, he has not alleged that he believes that he will suffer injury as a result of

the described practices in the future. Additionally, he has failed to explain how, if the Court were

to grant him a favorable decision, the relief he requests would in any way ameliorate or result in

the cessation of the practices he describes. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61 (holding that one element

of standing is the likelihood that the plaintiff’s injury will be redressed by a favorable decision).

Therefore, Howard lacks standing to bring any claim that may exist based on the Defendants’

alleged practices and his claims must be dismissed because the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain

them.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Howard leave to proceed in forma pauperis

and dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. As any attempt to amend the

Complaint would be futile, Howard will not be granted leave to amend. Grayson, 293 F.3d at 110;

see also Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 116 (3d Cir. 2000). An appropriate Order follows.