Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00388/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00388-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 430
Nature of Suit: Banks and Banking
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CEDRIC RHYM,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0388 MCE GGH PS

vs.

BANK OF AMERICA, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

 

Defendant.

 /

On June 26, 2007, this court dismissed plaintiff’s second amended complaint and

granted plaintiff leave to file a third amended complaint that clarifies the facts of this case and

clearly establishes this court’s diversity jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law defamation claim. 

The court concluded that plaintiff’s federal citations did not state claims upon which relief could

be granted. 

Plaintiff timely filed a third amended complaint; however, for the reasons

explained below, this court concludes that the complaint should be dismissed without further

leave to amend.

As in his prior complaints, plaintiff challenges the February 23, 2007 actions of

Bank of America (branch unidentified) manager Twee Nguyen when she publicly and falsely

Case 2:07-cv-00388-MCE -GGH Document 11 Filed 08/01/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

accused plaintiff of stealing three thousand dollars deposited into plaintiff’s account by another

customer. While admitting to poor record keeping, Ms. Nguyen asked plaintiff where the money

was, dramatically cut his bank card, and announced, “You’ll be hearing from our lawyers.”

Plaintiff’s customer status was cancelled. In his prior complaint, plaintiff stated that he offered

to pay back the money starting with $200 but Ms. Nguyen rejected the offer, stating the entire

amount was needed immediately. The complaint suggests that plaintiff remains unjustly

enriched but rightfully indignant.

The third amended complaint does not assert the requisite state law defamation

claim, nor any state law claim, but nonetheless asserts there is diversity of citizenship based on

the location of Bank of America’s headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina. However, plaintiff

does not invoke this court’s jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, but

rather on the asserted violations of plaintiff’s civil rights, 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a). As explained to

plaintiff in this court’s prior orders, plaintiff’s federal constitutional claims are not cognizable

against Bank of America because it is a private entity. Thus, plaintiff fails to assert a cognizable

state law claim or federal civil rights claim.

Plaintiff attempts to invoke this court’s federal subject matter jurisdiction by

relying on federal banking laws to support his allegations defendant acted unfairly and

deceptively. Plaintiff relies on 12 C.F.R. § 350.5 (“recognition of deposit ownership and

fiduciary relationships”) and § 344.4 (securities recordkeeping), mistakenly cited as statutes

(“U.S.C.”). However, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate how these regulations, promulgated

pursuant to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and enforceable against banking institutions by the

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, accord a private right of action to plaintiff or, even if

they do, that plaintiff has exhausted requisite administrative remedies. 

Plaintiff has been accorded three opportunities to amend his complaint, with

guidance by this court. Further amendment would not cure its inherent defects.

\\\\\

Case 2:07-cv-00388-MCE -GGH Document 11 Filed 08/01/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed with

prejudice.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file

written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

DATED: 8/1/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

___________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH5:Rhym0388.f&r

Case 2:07-cv-00388-MCE -GGH Document 11 Filed 08/01/07 Page 3 of 3