NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

:

TREASA FENNIE, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-2602 (MLC)

:

Plaintiff, : O P I N I O N

:

v. :

:

WELLS FARGO BANK, :

:

Defendant. :

 :

THE PLAINTIFF, who is pro se, applies for in-forma-pauperis

relief under 28 U.S.C. § (“Section”) 1915 (“Application”). (Dkt.

entry no. 1, Appl.) The Court will (1) grant the Application,

and (2) deem the Complaint to be filed. The Court may now (1)

review the Complaint, and (2) dismiss it sua sponte if it is

frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief

may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who

is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

THE PLAINTIFF, in the handwritten Complaint, asserts that

she “was violated by Breach of Contract” when the defendant bank

“fraudulently closed my savings [account] unjustly and without

merit [based on] inactivity which is false”. (Dkt. entry no. 1,

Compl. at 1.) The plaintiff seeks to have her “free savings

account . . . re-instated” and monetary damages. (Id.) The

plaintiff cites no statutes or law in support of her claim.

Case 3:11-cv-02602-MLC-TJB Document 2 Filed 05/09/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 9
THE COURT lacks subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to

Section 1332, as the cause of action does not satisfy the amountin-controversy threshold. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

THE PLAINTIFF also does not assert a cause of action that

falls under subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1331. 

See Mackay v. Keenan Mercedes Benz, 340 Fed.Appx. 127, 127 (3d

Cir. 2009) (affirming dismissal of complaint not alleging

violation of federal statute or Constitution); Scibelli v.

Lebanon Cnty., 219 Fed.Appx. 221, 222 (3d Cir. 2007) (dismissing

appeal from order dismissing complaint merely alleging defendant

caused “injuries” for failure to allege federal constitutional or

statutory basis for relief). Also, there can be no liability

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 here, as the defendant bank is not a state

actor. See James v. Heritage Valley Fed. Credit Union, 197

Fed.Appx. 102, 106 (3d Cir. 2006) (stating defendant credit union

and its employees were not state actors for purposes of 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983); Awala v. Wachovia Corp., 156 Fed.Appx. 527, 528 (3d Cir.

2005) (stating bank is not state actor merely because it operates

as a bank in a regulated industry). 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not

cover merely private conduct, no matter how wrongful. St. Croix

v. Etenad, 183 Fed.Appx. 230, 231 (3d Cir. 2006).

THE COURT will dismiss the Complaint for failing to state a

claim on which relief may be granted. But the Court will do so

without prejudice, and grant the plaintiff leave to recommence

2

Case 3:11-cv-02602-MLC-TJB Document 2 Filed 05/09/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 10
the action in state court to the extent that the action asserts a

cause of action under state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d)

(concerning state law claim surviving dismissal of federal

claim); see Jaworowski v. Ciasulli, 490 F.3d 331, 333-36 (3d Cir.

2007) (concerning state law claim surviving dismissal for lack of

jurisdiction under Section 1332). The Court will issue an 1

appropriate order and judgment.

 s/ Mary L. Cooper 

MARY L. COOPER

United States District Judge

Dated: May 9, 2011

 See, e.g., Buckley v. Trenton Sav. Fund Soc., 111 N.J. 1

355, 371 (1988) (discussing state court cases allowing claims for

damages when defendant bank unjustifiably froze or closed

plaintiff’s account).

3

Case 3:11-cv-02602-MLC-TJB Document 2 Filed 05/09/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 11