1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

DETRAYVION MIMS,

Plaintiff,

v. 

BANK OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:23-CV-00581-JDK

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff DeTrayvion Mims initiated this action, proceeding pro se, on November 22, 2023. 

(Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. No. 2.) 

The court, having reviewed the allegations, finds that it has no basis for federal jurisdiction over 

the alleged claims because Plaintiff has not pleaded any facts plausibly invoking grounds for the 

court’s jurisdiction. 

DISCUSSION

In his complaint, Plaintiff sues Defendant Bank of America for failing to respond to or 

approve his car loan and credit card applications. (Doc. No. 1-1.) Plaintiff alleges that on July 4, 

2023, he filed a car loan application with Bank of America and that on October 12, 2023, he filed 

a credit card application with Bank of America. (Doc. No. 1-2.) Plaintiff insinuates that both 

applications were denied, but that he did not receive adequate communication regarding the reason 

for denial from Bank of America. Id. Plaintiff states that he believes that this was a violation of his 

rights under the Federal Reserve Act. Id.

Case 6:23-cv-00581-JDK-JDL Document 4 Filed 11/29/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 23
2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) provides that “[i]f 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). Federal jurisdiction may be established through either federal question jurisdiction or 

diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331–32. Federal question jurisdiction may be established in 

civil actions “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1331. 

Here, Plaintiff cites the Federal Reserve Act presumably as a basis for federal jurisdiction.

(Doc. No. 1-1.) Specifically, Plaintiff cites to Section 16, parts 1 and 2, which deal with the 

issuance of notes by the Federal Reserve. Id. Plaintiff, however, is an individual, not a banking 

institution, and he has failed to allege how he would be personally entitled to any relief under this 

subsection of the Federal Reserve Act. For example, Plaintiff’s allegations arise from the fact that 

he was denied credit applications; he does not allege that he is the holder of a federal reserve note. 

Moreover, courts have found that this section does not create a private right of action. See, e.g., In 

re Tipton, No. 3:22-MC-0004, 2022 WL 1028026, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 6, 2022) (“12 U.S.C. § 

411, titled ‘Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption,’ governs the issuance of 

Federal Reserve notes and delegates to the Federal Reserve System the power to make clear that 

such notes are authorized currency of the United States ... this statute does not provide a private 

cause of action.”); Villaplana v. Randazzo, No. CV 16-8767, 2017 WL 5473453, at *2 (D.N.J. 

Nov. 14, 2017) (finding that Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act does not provide a private right 

of action). Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a federal claim. 

Federal subject-matter jurisdiction may alternatively be established based on diversity 

jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Diversity jurisdiction requires that: (1) no defendant is a citizen 

of the same state as any plaintiff; and that (2) the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. Here, 

Case 6:23-cv-00581-JDK-JDL Document 4 Filed 11/29/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 24
3

Plaintiff fails to allege his place of citizenship, though he has provided an address in Tyler, Texas. 

(Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff has failed to list an address for Bank of America. Id. As such, Plaintiff’s 

allegations are insufficient to establish jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. Moreover, 

Plaintiff’s complaint does not allege the requisite amount in controversy. Indeed, Plaintiff seeks 

only injunctive relief in having his applications approved and to have the Federal Reserve Act 

enforced. (Doc. No. 1, at 5.) Plaintiff does not allege any facts to suggest that the amount of 

controversy would be greater than $75,000 in this case. Accordingly, the court lacks jurisdiction 

over these claims, and they should be dismissed without prejudice. 

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the court finds that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over 

Plaintiff’s claims. As such, the court must dismiss the action. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). It is therefore 

RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. 

Within fourteen (14) days after receipt of the Magistrate Judge’s report and 

recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections to the findings and 

recommendations contained in the report and recommendation. A party’s failure to file written 

objections to the findings, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report and 

recommendation within fourteen days after being served with a copy shall bar that party from de 

novo review by the district judge of those findings, conclusions and recommendations and, except 

on grounds of plain error, from appellate review of unobjected-to factual findings and legal 

conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 

F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).

Case 6:23-cv-00581-JDK-JDL Document 4 Filed 11/29/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 25
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 29th day of November, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00581-JDK-JDL Document 4 Filed 11/29/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 26