Banks v. Ryan

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

WESTERN DIVISION

AARON BANKS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 24-cv-2988-SHL-tmp

)

KEVIN RYAN, BETTER MORTGAGE )

CORP., ROBERT Q. REILLY, PNC )

BANK, N.A., JENNIFER )

WILSON-HARVEY, and WILSON & )

ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C, )

)

Defendants. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court are defendants Jennifer Wilson-Harvey and

Wilson & Associates, P.L.L.C.’s (collectively the “Wilson &

Associates Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss, filed on March 27,

2025; Robert Q. Reilly and PNC Bank, N.A.’s (collectively the

“PNC Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss, filed on April 4, 2025; and

Kevin Ryan and Better Mortgage Corp.’s (collectively the “Better

Mortgage Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss, filed on April 15,

2025.1 (ECF Nos. 13, 14, 16.) Pro se plaintiff Aaron Banks has

responded in opposition to each motion. (ECF Nos. 15, 20.) For

the reasons below, the undersigned recommends that Banks’s

1Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2013-05, this case has been

referred to the United States magistrate judge for management of

all pretrial matters for determination or report and

recommendation, as appropriate.

complaint be sua sponte dismissed for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction as to all defendants.

I. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT

On December 12, 2024, Banks filed his complaint, styling it

as an “Affidavit of Bill of Complaint in Equity with

Injunction.” (ECF No. 2.) Banks’s complaint is largely

incomprehensible, but it appears that he is challenging the

defendants’ initiation of foreclosure proceedings on his

property located at 2904 Emerald St., Memphis, Tennessee 38115.

(See id. at PageID 4.) Although Banks appears to disclaim being

a sovereign citizen, (see id. at PageID 2), much of his

complaint is composed of arguments that are consistent with or

adjacent to the sovereign citizen movement.2 For example, Banks

refers to himself as “banks; aaron living soul,” and claims that

he is “the beneficial equitable title holder and first lien

holder” for “AARON BANKS (Trust/Estate),” further referring to

himself as an “infant/minor.”3 (Id.) He claims that

2For a discussion of the sovereign citizen movement, see United

States v. Cook, No. 3:18-CR-00019, 2019 WL 2721305, at *1-*2

(E.D. Tenn. June 28, 2019). Arguments consistent with the

sovereign citizen movement “have been consistently rejected by

courts.” Woodson v. Woodson, No. 22-mc-00003-TLP-tmp, 2022 WL

16985602, at *2 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 18, 2022) (citing United States

v. Bradley, 26 F. App'x 392, 394 (6th Cir. 2001)), report and

recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 16963997 (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 16,

2022).

3See Estate of Gardner v. Google, Inc., No. 3:25-CV-129-RGJ, 2025

WL 1656661, at *6, *1 n.1 (W.D. Ky. June 11, 2025) (noting that

BETTER MORTGAGE CORPORATION, ISAOA was the recipient,

the true borrower and not the lender of [$218,250.00]

and did not lend any “money,” or extend credit in this

alleged loan transaction and has twenty-one (21)

business days from the receipt of this Bill Of

Complaint In Equity with Injunction to respond via

affidavit and also to file the 1099-OID or one will be

filed for the Defendant by the beneficiary banks;

aaron-marquette on behalf of the Plaintiff's AARON

BANKS trust/estate.4

(Id. at PageID 3-4.) Banks further alleges that

pursuant to the Federal Reserve Act Section 16,

Paragraphs two (2) and four(4) [sic] which clearly

states that the promissory note is the collateral for

the property located at 2904 Emerald Street, Memphis,

Tennessee, the promissory note is the same as cash and

served as a check in the amount of $218,250.00 "paid"

to BETTER MORTGAGE CORPORATION, ISAOA., on November 04

2021. Therefore the property is not the collateral and

is not to be foreclosed upon.5

plaintiff “refer[red] to himself in all capital letters” and

dismissing claims consistent with sovereign citizen theories).

4“1099-OID” refers to IRS Form 1099-OID. 1099-OIDs “are

legitimately used by investors who receive income on a bond at

maturity from the ‘original issue discount’ (OID) they earned by

purchasing the bond below face value.” Cook, 2019 WL 2721305, at

*3 n.6 (citing Original Issue Discount – OID, Investopedia,

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/oid.asp) (rejecting

criminal defendant’s objections to report and recommendation

based on sovereign citizen arguments). However, “1099-OIDs are

also frequently used by sovereigns to report income which they

later claim has been withheld (using the claimed withholding to

file a fraudulent tax refund), and sovereign citizens have been

prosecuted for conducting extensive 1099-OID fraud schemes.” Id.

(citing United States v. Marty, No. CIV S-9-600, 2009 WL 2365556

(E.D. Cal. Jul. 29, 2009), report and recommendation adopted,

2009 WL 3111823 (E.D. Cal. Aug 31, 2009); Joshua P. Weir,

Sovereign Citizens: A Reasoned Response to the Madness, 19 Lewis

& Clark L. Rev. 830, 831-34 (2015)).

5District courts across the country have rejected similar claims

based on purported violations of the Federal Reserve Act. See,

e.g., Harrison v. Iriarte, No. 1:23-CV-141-GHD-DAS, 2024 WL

(Id. at PageID 4.) He additionally claims that “[t]his court

acts as an administration venue as a result of the presidential

administration acts and the presidential proclamation 2038,

2039, and 2040.”6 (Id. at PageID 5.)

Banks also dedicates much of his complaint to explaining

the nature of his alleged “trust” and why the court has

jurisdiction. (See id. at PageID 6-14.) For example, Banks

states that “[j]urisdiction over the estate of an infant is

inherent in equity.” (Id. at PageID 7.) While referring to

himself as an infant or minor, Banks claims that “[t]he term

4360626, at *9 (N.D. Miss. Aug. 6, 2024) (“Section 16 of the

Federal Reserve Act[] [is] a common citation in sovereign

citizen litigation, but this statute does not provide any

private cause of action. The courts have consistently rebuffed

these attempts.” (citing White v. Lake Union Ga. Partners LLC,

No. 1:23-CV-02852-VMC, 2023 WL 6036842, at *2 (N.D. Ga. July 14,

2023); Morton v. Am. Express, No. 6:23-cv-04567-BHH-JDA, 2023 WL

7923927, at *3 (D.S.C. Oct. 18, 2023))), report and

recommendation adopted, 2024 WL 4363236 (N.D. Miss. Sept. 30,

2024); Wilson v. Aqua Fin., No. CV 3:23-5348-SAL-SVH, 2023 WL

7924150, at *3-*5 (D.S.C. Oct. 26, 2023) (finding that

plaintiff’s complaint was consistent with the sovereign citizen

movement and subject to dismissal where it invoked the Federal

Reserve Act), report and recommendation adopted, 2024 WL 1406015

(D.S.C. Apr. 2, 2024); Anderson v. Navy Fed. Credit Union, No.

3:23-CV-05506-DGE, 2023 WL 6481518, at *1, *3 (W.D. Wash. Oct.

5, 2023) (noting that plaintiff’s citation to the Federal

Reserve Act did not provide federal question jurisdiction and

dismissing complaint based in part on raising frivolous

sovereign citizen arguments).

6This court has previously found that dismissal was warranted

based on sovereign citizen arguments where the plaintiff invoked

Presidential Proclamations 2039 and 2040. Woodson, 2022 WL

16985602, at *2.

minor is also used to refer to an individual who has attained

the age of 18 years but has not yet taken control of all the

securities contained in his or her minor account.” (Id. at

PageID 11.) According to Banks, this “is the case of the

Plaintiff’s beneficiary banks; aaron-marquette who is diligently

working on doing so.” (Id.) In support of his complaint, Banks

filed several documents under seal with the court.7 (ECF No. 7.)

On March 27, 2025, the Wilson & Associates Defendants filed

their Motion to Dismiss, arguing that Banks does not allege any

facts as to them. (ECF Nos. 13, 13-1.) The PNC Defendants filed

their Motion to Dismiss on April 4, 2025. (ECF No. 14.) They

argue that Banks’s complaint should be dismissed for

insufficient service of process, for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction based on Banks’s sovereign citizen arguments, and

for failure to state a claim. (Id.) Banks responded in

opposition to those motions on April 11, 2025. (ECF No. 15.) The

Better Mortgage Defendants then filed their motion to dismiss on

April 15, 2025. (ECF No. 16.) They argue that Banks’s complaint

should be dismissed for insufficient service of process and for

failure to state a claim. (Id.) Banks responded in opposition on

April 23, 2025. (ECF No. 20.)

7Based on the undersigned’s review, these documents are

consistent with sovereign citizen theories.

II. PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than

formal pleadings drafted by lawyers and are thus liberally

construed. Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011)

(citing Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 712 (6th Cir. 2002)).

Even so, pro se litigants must adhere to the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, see Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir.

1989), and the court cannot create a claim that has not been

spelled out in a pleading, see Brown v. Matauszak, 415 F. App'x

608, 613 (6th Cir. 2011); Payne v. Sec'y of Treas., 73 F. App'x

836, 837 (6th Cir. 2003).

“A district court may, at any time, sua sponte dismiss a

complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to

Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the

allegations of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated,

unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to

discussion.” Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999).

“Courts have repeatedly rejected, as frivolous, arguments based

on the theory of sovereign citizenship[,] recognizing that such

arguments are a waste of court resources.” Estate of Gardner

2025 WL 1656661, at *6 (quoting Powell v. Michigan, No. 22-

10816, 2023 WL 2154954, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 24, 2023))

(citation modified). Thus, claims based on sovereign citizen

theories are subject to sua sponte dismissal “without extended

argument.” Id. (citing Primero v. Barum, No. 3:24-cv-200, 2024

WL 1543782, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 9, 2024); Adkins v. Kentucky,

No. 3:18-mc-26, 2018 WL 6528462, at *1–2 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 12,

2018); Maddox El v. Scharf, No. 23-10990, 2023 WL 3587538, at

*1–2 (E.D. Mich. May 22, 2023)). Here, Banks’s “claims use the

meritless rhetoric frequently espoused by tax protestors,

sovereign citizens, and self-proclaimed Moorish-Americans.” Bey

v. Weisenburger, No. 23-3689, 2024 WL 3912829, at *2 (6th Cir.

June 5, 2024) (quoting United States v. Coleman, 871 F.3d 470,

476 (6th Cir. 2017)) (citation modified). “These claims are

wholly frivolous,” id., and Banks has not otherwise clearly

alleged any cognizable claim. Accordingly, the undersigned

recommends that Banks’s complaint be dismissed for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction. See id. (affirming district court’s

sua sponte dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint under Apple where

plaintiff relied on sovereign citizen arguments).

III. RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that

Banks’s complaint be sua sponte dismissed for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction as to all defendants.

Respectfully submitted,

s/Tu M. Pham

TU M. PHAM

Chief United States Magistrate Judge

June 25, 2025

Date

NOTICE

WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS AFTER BEING SERVED WITH A COPY OF THIS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION, ANY PARTY MAY SERVE AND FILE

SPECIFIC WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS. ANY PARTY MAY RESPOND TO ANOTHER PARTY’S

OBJECTIONS WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS AFTER BEING SERVED WITH A

COPY. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2); L.R.

72.1(g)(2). FAILURE TO FILE OBJECTIONS WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS

MAY CONSTITUTE A WAIVER AND/OR FORFEITURE OF OBJECTIONS,

EXCEPTIONS, AND FURTHER APPEAL.