1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10
11 BLACK LIVES MATTER; WOMEN Case No. 2:20-cv-06919-ODW (GJS) IN LOS ANGELES, MINNESOTA, 12 & AROUND THE WORLD & ORDER DISMISSING PETITION PITTSBURGH CONTACT; 13 FREDERICK BANKS, 05711068, NEOCC, 2240 Hubbard Road, 14 Youngstown, OH 44505, 15 Petitioners 16 v.
17 CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY; WARDEN, NEOCC 18 CORECIVIC, 19 Respondents.
20 On July 27, 2020, a putative 28 U.S.C. § 2241 “class action” habeas 21 petition/motion was filed in this District [Dkt. 1, “Petition”]. The Petition was filed 22 by Frederick Banks, a convicted federal criminal currently incarcerated in the 23 Northeast Ohio Correctional Center in Youngstown, Ohio. The Petition purports to 24 be brought on behalf of Banks individually as well as by the Black Live Matter 25 movement and all “women” all over the world. Banks is the only signatory to the 26 Petition and mailed it from his present prison. The Petition names two Respondents: 27 the Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”); and the Warden of the Northeast Ohio 28 Correctional Center. 1 The Petition states that it does not challenge a conviction or sentence, but does 2 challenge the manner in which Banks’s current criminal sentence is being executed. 3 This allegation, however, plainly is untrue, given that Banks is not challenging how 4 his sentence is being implemented or executed. Rather, as he has alleged so many 5 times in the past, Banks asserts that the CIA is using “Microwave Auditory Effect” 6 remote satellite technology to electronically surveil him and the other petitioners – 7 here, the members of the Black Lives Matter movement and “all” women in “the 8 world” – and this global surveillance somehow is tied to an unspecified “FISA 9 warrant.” Banks alleges that through the use of this satellite technology, the CIA 10 caused the various Black Lives Matter protests here in the United States and 11 globally. Banks further alleges, as he has done in the past, that though a November 12 7, 2016 letter that he wrote to Ivanka Trump, he “exposed the FISA electronic 13 surveillance on the Trump campaign” and that Steve Bannon leaked his letter to 14 Breitbart News. As relief, Banks asks that: the “FISA warrant” be disclosed in an 15 unclassified form and lifted; all of the petitioners be discharged from the CIA’s 16 “FISA restraint”; tall of the petitioners be discharged from custody; and that this 17 case be certified s a class action and class counsel be appointed. 18 While Banks has a prior criminal history, the Court need not recount it here. In 19 the most recent of his criminal cases, Banks was tried by jury in the United States 20 District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and found guilty of multiple 21 federal counts of wire fraud and one federal count of aggravated identity theft on 22 November 8, 2019. Banks was sentenced on June 16, 2020, to consecutive terms of 23 80 months and 24 months imprisonment, to be followed by several years of 24 supervised release. See Docket in Case No. 2:15-cr-00168 (W.D. Pa.). 25 Apart from his criminal status and related time spent in the federal court system, 26 Banks also is “a notorious frequent filer” in the federal court system, whose cases 27 routinely are dismissed at the pleading stage as frivolous. See Banks v. Song, No. 28 1:17-cv-00339 (D. Haw. July 25, 2017) (Order Dismissing Action and Denying In 1 Forma Pauperis Application); see also Banks v. Cuevas, No. 4:17CV2460, 2018 WL 2 1942192, at *1 (N.D. Ohio April 25, 2018) (describing Banks as a “frequent filer of 3 frivolous actions in federal and state courts”); Banks v. Song, No. 17-00093, 2018 4 WL 3130940, at *1-*2 (D. Guam Jun. 26, 2018) (finding lawsuit filed by Banks 5 related to his present criminal prosecution essentially was the same suit that he had 6 filed in a number of other Districts in the United States and was “malicious” and 7 improperly filed in the District of Guam); Banks v. New York Police Dept., No. 8 4:15-CV-75-RLW, 2015 WL 1414828, at *2-*3 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 26, 2015) 9 (dismissing as legally frivolous and malicious mandamus action brought by Banks 10 seeking relief based upon, inter alia, the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael 11 Brown).1 Pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court has 12 taken judicial notice of the case dockets and filings available through the PACER 13 and Westlaw systems relating to Banks, which show hundreds (and probably well 14 over 1,000) of federal civil proceedings initiated by Banks over the past decade. 15 When federal courts began dismissing Banks’s civil cases under 28 U.S.C. § 16 1915(g) due to his numerous “strikes,” he turned to filing 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or other 17 types of petitions or motions in an attempt to avoid the Section 1915(g) limitation on 18 his ability to file actions without paying the filing fee. See Banks v. Valaluka, No. 19 1:15-cv-01935 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 18, 2015) (denying leave to proceed in forma 20 pauperis and dismissing purported mandamus action).) As one District Court 21 described him: 22 Banks is a well-established, multi-district, frequent filer, who has brought over 350 cases in the Northern District 23 of Ohio, the District of Massachusetts, the Southern 24 25 1 Banks also has filed a number of actions in this District that have been summarily dismissed as frivolous. See Case Nos.: 2:15-cv-04225-ODW (GJSx); 2:16-cv-05544-JAK (KSx); 26 2:16-cv-07398-R (JPSx); 2:16-cv-07954-ODW (GJS); 2:17-cv-05412-GW (JPRx); 5:18-cv- 00526-ODW (GJS); 5:19-cv-00780-ODW (GJS); 2:19-cv-06748-JAK (JC); 2:19-cv-07428-ODW 27 (GJS); 2:19-cv-08514-ODW (GJS); 2:19-cv-10468-ODW (GJS); 2:20-cv-00665-ODW (GJS); 2:20-cv-00680-ODW (GJS); 2:20-cv-00979-ODW (GJS); 2:20-cv-01138-ODW (GJS); 2:20-cv- 28 03640-ODW (GJS); 2:20-cv-05579-ODW (GJS); and 2:20-cv-06288-ODW (GJS). 1 Southern District of New York, the Western District of 2 New York, the District of Colorado, the District of Arizona, the Southern District of Florida, the Middle 3 District of Florida, the Eastern District of North Carolina, the Middle and Western Districts of Pennsylvania, the 4 Eastern District of Missouri, the Eastern District of New Jersey, the Eastern District of Arkansas, the Western 5 District of Oklahoma, the District of Utah, and the 6 District of Alaska. All of these cases were dismissed as frivolous. He has been declared to be subject to three 7 strike provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) on numerous occasions. Undeterred, Banks utilizes § 2241 to 8 circumvent the application of § 1915(g). 9 Banks v. Greene, No. 4:18-cv-0884, 2018 WL 4615938, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 10 25, 2018). 11 In addition to numerous findings that Banks’s case-initiating filings are 12 frivolous, Banks has been designated as a vexatious litigant. See, e.g., Banks v. 13 Pope Francis, No. 2:15-cv-01400 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 8, 2015) (Order designating 14 Petitioner as a vexatious litigant). That vexatious litigant designation has been 15 ordered extended to cover filings made by Banks on behalf of any other persons, 16 whether as a purported “next friend” or otherwise, unless and until he has complied 17 with the requirements of the original vexatious litigant designation order. See 18 United States v. Miller, 726 Fed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10
11 BLACK LIVES MATTER; WOMEN Case No. 2:20-cv-06919-ODW (GJS) IN LOS ANGELES, MINNESOTA, 12 & AROUND THE WORLD & ORDER DISMISSING PETITION PITTSBURGH CONTACT; 13 FREDERICK BANKS, 05711068, NEOCC, 2240 Hubbard Road, 14 Youngstown, OH 44505, 15 Petitioners 16 v.
17 CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY; WARDEN, NEOCC 18 CORECIVIC, 19 Respondents.
20 On July 27, 2020, a putative 28 U.S.C. § 2241 “class action” habeas 21 petition/motion was filed in this District [Dkt. 1, “Petition”]. The Petition was filed 22 by Frederick Banks, a convicted federal criminal currently incarcerated in the 23 Northeast Ohio Correctional Center in Youngstown, Ohio. The Petition purports to 24 be brought on behalf of Banks individually as well as by the Black Live Matter 25 movement and all “women” all over the world. Banks is the only signatory to the 26 Petition and mailed it from his present prison. The Petition names two Respondents: 27 the Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”); and the Warden of the Northeast Ohio 28 Correctional Center. 1 The Petition states that it does not challenge a conviction or sentence, but does 2 challenge the manner in which Banks’s current criminal sentence is being executed. 3 This allegation, however, plainly is untrue, given that Banks is not challenging how 4 his sentence is being implemented or executed. Rather, as he has alleged so many 5 times in the past, Banks asserts that the CIA is using “Microwave Auditory Effect” 6 remote satellite technology to electronically surveil him and the other petitioners – 7 here, the members of the Black Lives Matter movement and “all” women in “the 8 world” – and this global surveillance somehow is tied to an unspecified “FISA 9 warrant.” Banks alleges that through the use of this satellite technology, the CIA 10 caused the various Black Lives Matter protests here in the United States and 11 globally. Banks further alleges, as he has done in the past, that though a November 12 7, 2016 letter that he wrote to Ivanka Trump, he “exposed the FISA electronic 13 surveillance on the Trump campaign” and that Steve Bannon leaked his letter to 14 Breitbart News. As relief, Banks asks that: the “FISA warrant” be disclosed in an 15 unclassified form and lifted; all of the petitioners be discharged from the CIA’s 16 “FISA restraint”; tall of the petitioners be discharged from custody; and that this 17 case be certified s a class action and class counsel be appointed. 18 While Banks has a prior criminal history, the Court need not recount it here. In 19 the most recent of his criminal cases, Banks was tried by jury in the United States 20 District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and found guilty of multiple 21 federal counts of wire fraud and one federal count of aggravated identity theft on 22 November 8, 2019. Banks was sentenced on June 16, 2020, to consecutive terms of 23 80 months and 24 months imprisonment, to be followed by several years of 24 supervised release. See Docket in Case No. 2:15-cr-00168 (W.D. Pa.). 25 Apart from his criminal status and related time spent in the federal court system, 26 Banks also is “a notorious frequent filer” in the federal court system, whose cases 27 routinely are dismissed at the pleading stage as frivolous. See Banks v. Song, No. 28 1:17-cv-00339 (D. Haw. July 25, 2017) (Order Dismissing Action and Denying In 1 Forma Pauperis Application); see also Banks v. Cuevas, No. 4:17CV2460, 2018 WL 2 1942192, at *1 (N.D. Ohio April 25, 2018) (describing Banks as a “frequent filer of 3 frivolous actions in federal and state courts”); Banks v. Song, No. 17-00093, 2018 4 WL 3130940, at *1-*2 (D. Guam Jun. 26, 2018) (finding lawsuit filed by Banks 5 related to his present criminal prosecution essentially was the same suit that he had 6 filed in a number of other Districts in the United States and was “malicious” and 7 improperly filed in the District of Guam); Banks v. New York Police Dept., No. 8 4:15-CV-75-RLW, 2015 WL 1414828, at *2-*3 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 26, 2015) 9 (dismissing as legally frivolous and malicious mandamus action brought by Banks 10 seeking relief based upon, inter alia, the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael 11 Brown).1 Pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court has 12 taken judicial notice of the case dockets and filings available through the PACER 13 and Westlaw systems relating to Banks, which show hundreds (and probably well 14 over 1,000) of federal civil proceedings initiated by Banks over the past decade. 15 When federal courts began dismissing Banks’s civil cases under 28 U.S.C. § 16 1915(g) due to his numerous “strikes,” he turned to filing 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or other 17 types of petitions or motions in an attempt to avoid the Section 1915(g) limitation on 18 his ability to file actions without paying the filing fee. See Banks v. Valaluka, No. 19 1:15-cv-01935 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 18, 2015) (denying leave to proceed in forma 20 pauperis and dismissing purported mandamus action).) As one District Court 21 described him: 22 Banks is a well-established, multi-district, frequent filer, who has brought over 350 cases in the Northern District 23 of Ohio, the District of Massachusetts, the Southern 24 25 1 Banks also has filed a number of actions in this District that have been summarily dismissed as frivolous. See Case Nos.: 2:15-cv-04225-ODW (GJSx); 2:16-cv-05544-JAK (KSx); 26 2:16-cv-07398-R (JPSx); 2:16-cv-07954-ODW (GJS); 2:17-cv-05412-GW (JPRx); 5:18-cv- 00526-ODW (GJS); 5:19-cv-00780-ODW (GJS); 2:19-cv-06748-JAK (JC); 2:19-cv-07428-ODW 27 (GJS); 2:19-cv-08514-ODW (GJS); 2:19-cv-10468-ODW (GJS); 2:20-cv-00665-ODW (GJS); 2:20-cv-00680-ODW (GJS); 2:20-cv-00979-ODW (GJS); 2:20-cv-01138-ODW (GJS); 2:20-cv- 28 03640-ODW (GJS); 2:20-cv-05579-ODW (GJS); and 2:20-cv-06288-ODW (GJS). 1 Southern District of New York, the Western District of 2 New York, the District of Colorado, the District of Arizona, the Southern District of Florida, the Middle 3 District of Florida, the Eastern District of North Carolina, the Middle and Western Districts of Pennsylvania, the 4 Eastern District of Missouri, the Eastern District of New Jersey, the Eastern District of Arkansas, the Western 5 District of Oklahoma, the District of Utah, and the 6 District of Alaska. All of these cases were dismissed as frivolous. He has been declared to be subject to three 7 strike provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) on numerous occasions. Undeterred, Banks utilizes § 2241 to 8 circumvent the application of § 1915(g). 9 Banks v. Greene, No. 4:18-cv-0884, 2018 WL 4615938, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 10 25, 2018). 11 In addition to numerous findings that Banks’s case-initiating filings are 12 frivolous, Banks has been designated as a vexatious litigant. See, e.g., Banks v. 13 Pope Francis, No. 2:15-cv-01400 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 8, 2015) (Order designating 14 Petitioner as a vexatious litigant). That vexatious litigant designation has been 15 ordered extended to cover filings made by Banks on behalf of any other persons, 16 whether as a purported “next friend” or otherwise, unless and until he has complied 17 with the requirements of the original vexatious litigant designation order. See 18 United States v. Miller, 726 Fed. App’x 107 (June 7, 2018) (affirming district court 19 order so extending scope of vexatious litigant order entered against Banks). 20 As even the most cursory review of his cases available through the PACER 21 system shows, Banks has a history of filing delusional and meritless actions on his 22 own behalf or supposedly on behalf of others with whom he has no connection, 23 often (as here) alleging electronic surveillance by the CIA or others. See, e.g., 24 Banks v. United States, No. 19-CV-8829 (CM), 2019 WL 4933424, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. 25 Oct. 7, 2019) (“Banks has a history of filing actions on behalf of others without their 26 permission, either by using the ‘next friend’ device or by naming another individual 27 as a co-plaintiff without that individual’s authorization”; and finding that Section 28 2241 petition brought by Banks on the purported behalf of climate activist Greta 1 Thunberg was a “continuation of [his] pattern of vexatious, frivolous, and 2 nonmeritorious litigation” that warranted summary dismissal); Banks v. Crooked 3 Hilary, No. 2:16-cv-07954 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2016) (Order denying leave to 4 proceed in forma pauperis and discussing some of the prior decisions finding 5 Petitioner’s actions to be frivolous and delusional); Schlemmer v. Central 6 Intelligence Agency, No. 2:15-cv-01583 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 15, 2015) (Order dismissing 7 with prejudice a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition filed by Petitioner as purported 8 “next friend” on behalf of a criminal defendant with whom he had no relationship); 9 Valaluka, supra (Order at 2: “Banks has not limited his frivolous filings to cases he 10 files in his own name, but has expanded his efforts by filing cases and motions on 11 behalf of other prisoners, often without their knowledge or consent.”). The instant 12 Petition is yet another in Banks’s ongoing vexatious and improper litigation, which 13 is (as here) prompted by some event that received media coverage to which Banks 14 attempts to attach himself through frivolous and/or delusional allegations. 15 There is no viable claim for relief alleged in the Petition, but particularly so to 16 the extent that Banks purports to seek relief on behalf of others under the guise of a 17 habeas action or a class action.2 Banks has no standing or right to seek habeas or 18 any other type of relief on behalf of the members of the Black Lives Matter 19 movement or on behalf of “all” women on this planet. There is no evidence before 20 the Court that any person possibly could wish to have Banks – a pro se vexatious 21 litigant and convicted criminal serving a lengthy sentence, with a documented 22 longstanding history of filing utterly frivolous and delusional actions – act as his or 23 her legal representative in seeking any relief in federal courts. Indeed, common 24 sense dictates otherwise. Nor do any of the Petition’s allegations give rise to any 25 26 2 The electronic surveillance allegations appear to be factually and legally frivolous within 27 the meaning of Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-22 (1989), and Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). 28 1 plausible theory or basis for a class action. Rather, this is yet another in an ongoing 2 series of attempts by Banks to get his foot in the federal courthouse door by 3 capitalizing on things that have happened to other people (often tragic) with whom 4 he has no connection whatsoever. Once again, Banks purports to seek “habeas” 5 relief on behalf of others (unbeknownst to them) based on some recent newsworthy 6 event, so that he can parasitically add on a baseless request for “habeas” or other 7 relief on his own part. 8 It bears repeating that Banks has no right to purport to represent anyone else in 9 legal proceedings. He has been advised of this time and time again in the Court’s 10 earlier Orders dismissing his prior actions, yet he persists in filing improper 11 “habeas” petitions on behalf of others, without their knowledge or consent. Not 12 only has Banks failed to obtain the consent of any other person to represent him or 13 her, but Banks knows that he knows that he cannot do so legally. As Banks as been 14 told repeatedly, generally, non-lawyers may not represent other persons in court. 15 See, e.g., Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008) (“courts 16 have routinely adhered to the general rule prohibiting pro se plaintiffs from pursuing 17 claims on behalf of others in a representative capacity”); Collinsgru v. Palmyra Bd. 18 Of Educ., 161 F.3d 225, 232 (3rd Cir. 1998). 28 U.S.C. § 1654 permits persons to 19 appear on a pro se basis only in their “own cases personally.” See Shephard v. 20 Wellman, 313 F.3d 963, 970 (6th Cir. 2002). Local Rule 83-2.10.2 expressly 21 prohibits a pro se litigant from delegating his representation to any other person. 22 Because Banks is not a lawyer authorized to practice in this Court, he may not 23 pursue relief on behalf of anyone else here. See C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United 24 States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987) (a layperson acting in pro per may not 25 appear or seek relief on behalf of others); see also Banks as next friend of Waymer v. 26 Eddy, 801 Fed. Appx. 50 (3rd Cir. April 14, 2020) (affirming dismissal of Section 27 2241 petition brought by Banks on behalf of others and finding that not only did 28 Banks lack standing to seek relief on behalf of others as a next friend, but that “as a 1 layperson, Banks cannot represent other parties,” even if he is purporting to act as a 2 next friend); Banks v. NPR New Morning Edition, 795 Fed. App’x 92 (3rd Cir. Feb. 3 25, 2020) (affirming dismissal of Section 2241 petition brought by Bank on behalf 4 of Anthony Bourdain and finding that “Banks cannot litigate on behalf of Bourdain 5 or his estate”). 6 In addition, there is no nonfrivolous basis for Banks to be seeking habeas or any 7 other relief in this District on his own behalf, regardless of his vague and frivolous 8 assertions of a “FISA warrant” and electronic surveillance. Banks is in custody 9 because he has been convicted of federal crimes in a different federal District and is 10 serving his related sentence in a different District, not because of any putative FISA 11 warrant and/or electronic surveillance, regardless of where this putative “warrant” 12 allegedly issued or the surveillance originated. Banks is not in custody in this 13 District for habeas or any other purposes, because he was not convicted in this 14 District and is not incarcerated here. See Banks v. Canada, No. 9:20-CV-0064 15 (LEK), 2020 WL 1689859, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. April 7, 2020) (dismissing Section 2241 16 petition brought by Banks raising the same allegations he has made in prior cases 17 brought here and finding that his allegation that the CIA’s alleged electronic signal 18 originated in the district (as he has made in many of his cases brought here) was 19 insufficient to confer jurisdiction in the district, given that his district of 20 confinement was elsewhere). Banks has been told this time after time, but he 21 nonetheless persists in filing frivolous actions in this District that have no place 22 here. 23 If Banks wishes to challenge his present criminal custody, there are established 24 avenues for him to do so, but none of them include bringing repeated and frivolous 25 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or other civil actions outside of the District of conviction based on 26 matters having nothing to do with his present conviction and/or sentence. The 27 matters alleged in the Petition simply do not involve situations in which Section 28 2241 federal habeas jurisdiction or any other basis for federal jurisdiction properly 1 || can be invoked, much less in a District having nothing to do with him. 2 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: the Petition is dismissed for lack of 3 || jurisdiction; and Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action. 4 NN 5 || DATED: August 4, 2020 Chip 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 || Submitted by: 10 11 12 || GAIL J. STANDISH 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28