Hoskins, James v. TCF National Bank
This text of 248 F. App'x 742 (Hoskins, James v. TCF National Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
ORDER
Wisconsin inmate James Hoskins sued TCF National Bank under 42 U.S.C. *743 § 1983 claiming that it paid out about $3,000 on approximately 40 fraudulent checks that were drawn on his account. The district court screened Hoskins’s amended complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b)(1).
On appeal Hoskins continues to press his contention that the bank violated his constitutional rights. But, as the district court observed, Hoskins cannot proceed with his federal claim under § 1983 because his allegations against the bank describe purely private business activities. The bank is not a state actor. See Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 50, 119 S.Ct. 977, 143 L.Ed.2d 130 (1999); Gayman v. Principal Fin. Servs., Inc., 311 F.3d 851, 852-53 (7th Cir.2002); Mitchell v. Kirk, 20 F.3d 936, 938 (8th Cir.1994). Accordingly, the court properly dismissed Hoskins’s complaint.
The district court told Hoskins that he incurred one “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) for filing a complaint that fails to state a claim, and we note that he now has incurred a second “strike” for filing a frivolous appeal.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
248 F. App'x 742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoskins-james-v-tcf-national-bank-ca7-2007.