2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

2-14-2011

Otis Bridgeforth v. TD Bank NA

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-4002

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Otis Bridgeforth v. TD Bank NA" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 1791.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/1791
CLD-102 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-4002

___________

OTIS MICHAEL BRIDGEFORTH,

 Appellant

v.

TD BANK; POOJA YADAV,

Cus. Serv. Rep

____________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Delaware

(D.C. Civil No. 10-cv-00472)

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 14, 2011)

_________

OPINION OF THE COURT

_________

PER CURIAM

Otis Michael Bridgeforth filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a 

bank and one of its employees, alleging that on May 29, 2010, he was prevented from 
2

opening a student checking account. He claimed that the defendants intentionally 

inflicted emotional distress and discriminated against him on the basis of “race, color, and 

sex” when they found his New York driver‟s license, student identification card, and a 

piece of mail he received insufficient to verify his address. He alleged that they lied to 

him when they told him that they only accepted proof of car registration or insurance, a 

utility bill, a pay stub, or a letter from an employer to verify an address. He alleged that 

he was later able to open the account over the telephone with the help of a representative 

who explained that he could have opened his account in the bank had he presented a 

Social Security card with his student identification card and a piece of recent mail. 

Bridgeforth requested thirty million dollars in damages and the termination of bank 

employees.

The District Court dismissed the complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2). The District Court also 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). 

Bridgeforth purported to proceed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As the District Court 

noted, to state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff “must allege the violation of a right 
3

secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged 

deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Neither defendant was acting under color of state law. See id.

(explaining that a defendant must be “clothed with the authority of state law” to be acting 

under color of state law). 

We also note that Bridgeforth included no allegations in his complaint from which 

discrimination can be inferred. It is possible that Bridgeforth‟s claims could be 

interpreted as an attempt to plead a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which 

prohibits race discrimination in making and enforcing contracts. See Brown v. Philip 

Morris, Inc., 250 F.3d 789, 796 (3d Cir. 2001). To state a claim under § 1981, a plaintiff 

must allege that he or she is a member of a racial minority, that the defendant had the 

intent to discriminate on the basis of race, and the discrimination concerned one or more 

of the activities enumerated in the statute, which include the right to make or enforce 

contracts. Id. at 797 (citations omitted). However, Bridgeforth merely made a bare claim 

that the defendants‟ actions were related to his race and stated that the defendants‟ actions 

seemed “shady” and “immature.” A well-pleaded complaint must contain more than

“„labels or conclusions.‟” See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1939 (2009) (quoting 

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). 

Because Bridgeforth stated no federal claim, the District Court did not err in 

declining to consider the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under state 
4

law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); De Asencio v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 342 F.3d 301, 311 (3d 

Cir. 2003). 

For these reasons, the District Court properly dismissed Bridgeforth‟s complaint. 

We also conclude that the District Court 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). Because this appeal does not have an arguable basis

in fact or law, we will dismiss it appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B). See

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).