Case Name: Gbeke Michael AWALA, et al. and the People of American-Nigerian-American Development Foundation v. WACHOVIA CORP.; Bank Charleston (SC), Predecessor; Georgia Railroad and Bank Co. (Owned Slaves Before The Civil War) Gbeke Michael Awala, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-08
Citations: 156 F. App'x 527
Docket Number: No. 05-3381
Parties: Gbeke Michael AWALA, et al. and the People of American-Nigerian-American Development Foundation v. WACHOVIA CORP.; Bank Charleston (SC), Predecessor; Georgia Railroad and Bank Co. (Owned Slaves Before The Civil War) Gbeke Michael Awala, Appellant.
Judges: Before BARRY, SMITH and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 156
Pages: 527–528

Head Matter:
Gbeke Michael AWALA, et al. and the People of American-Nigerian-American Development Foundation v. WACHOVIA CORP.; Bank Charleston (SC), Predecessor; Georgia Railroad and Bank Co. (Owned Slaves Before The Civil War) Gbeke Michael Awala, Appellant.
No. 05-3381.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) Nov. 23, 2005.
Decided Dec. 8, 2005.
Gbeke Michael Awala, Philadelphia, PA, pro se.
Before BARRY, SMITH and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM
On June 20, 2005, Gbeke M. Awala filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Wachovia Bank and its predecessors seeking monetary damages for what appears to be the ownership and use of African-American slaves in the nineteenth century. He also claims to represent other individuals and groups, but none have entered an appearance, and it is unclear whether the groups even exist. The District Court dismissed the complaint as frivolous because Awala failed to allege that the Defendants were acting under the col- or of state law and failed to establish standing to sue.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will dismiss an appeal as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) when it is lacking in arguable legal merit. We exercise plenary review over the dismissal of a complaint under § 1915(e). Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir.2000). Awala's filings are confused and convoluted. He appears to argue that the Defendant Banks are state actors because they operate as banks, a regulated industry, and trade in government bonds. Neither of these activities constitutes state action, either direct or delegated. See Reichley v. Penn. Dep't of Agric., 427 F.3d 236, 244-45 (3d Cir.2005); Biener v. Calio, 361 F.3d 206, 216-17 (3d Cir.2004).
We agree with the District Court that the Defendants are not state actors. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed under § 1915(e).