Bryant v. Washington Federal Bank, Inc
2:20-cv-01266
| D.N.M. | Dec 17, 2020Background:
- Plaintiff Ann W. Easley Bryant sued Washington Federal Bank, Inc., alleging bank employees altered her withdrawals and withheld funds from June 2015 through August 2018.
- Bryant’s complaint invoked 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (bank fraud) and cited 12 U.S.C. chapters described as “Truth in Savings” and “Chp. 49,” though the pleadings contained no mortgage or disclosure allegations tied to those statutes.
- Bryant filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, reporting monthly income $429, monthly expenses $429, and $85 in cash/bank assets.
- The Court granted the IFP application based on Bryant’s sworn affidavit of poverty.
- The Court determined the complaint failed to state a claim: § 1344 is a criminal statute that does not create a private civil cause of action; the cited 12 U.S.C. chapters were misapplied (Chapter 49 concerns mortgages and has a two‑year discovery rule; Chapter 44 concerns disclosure of rates/fees and was not pled).
- The Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim but granted leave to amend by January 8, 2021; service was withheld pending a viable amended complaint and a motion providing the defendant’s address.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFP eligibility | Bryant: affidavit shows inability to pay costs | No opposing argument in record | Granted — IFP approved based on affidavit and financial info |
| Private civil remedy under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 | Bryant: bank committed bank fraud | § 1344 is criminal; no private civil cause exists | Dismissed — § 1344 cannot support a civil claim |
| Claim under 12 U.S.C. Chapter 49 (Homeowners Protection) | Bryant: invoked Chapter 49 | Complaint lacks mortgage-related allegations; possible § 4907(b) two‑year discovery bar | Dismissed — insufficient/mispleaded statutory basis; potential statute‑of‑limitations problem |
| Claim under 12 U.S.C. Chapter 44 (Truth in Savings) and service | Bryant: invoked Truth in Savings | Complaint contains no allegations about disclosures, rates, or fees; no service address provided | Dismissed for failure to state a claim; court withheld service and allowed amendment (must include defendant address to obtain service) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ragan v. Cox, 305 F.2d 58 (10th Cir. 1962) (district court should examine IFP papers to determine if § 1915(a) requirements are satisfied)
- Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331 (1948) (an IFP applicant need not be absolutely destitute; affidavit showing inability to pay is sufficient)
- Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54 (1986) (private citizens lack a judicially cognizable interest in the criminal prosecution of another)
- Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (1973) (private citizen generally lacks standing to seek prosecution of alleged crimes)
- Perkins v. Kan. Dep’t of Corr., 165 F.3d 803 (10th Cir. 1999) (under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), an IFP complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim only when amendment would be futile)