-
Opinions of the United 2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-8-2005 Awala v. Wachovia Corp Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-3381 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005 Recommended Citation "Awala v. Wachovia Corp" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 135. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/135 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu. CPS-58 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT NO. 05-3381 GBEKE MICHAEL AWALA, et al.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 _______________ On Appeal From the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civ. No. 05-cv-02923) District Judge: Honorable Ronald L. Buckwalter _______________________________________ Submitted Under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) Before: BARRY, SMITH and NYGAARD, CIRCUIT JUDGES November 23, 2005 (Filed : December 8, 2005) _______________________ OPINION _______________________ PER CURIAM On June 20, 2005, Gbeke M. Awala filed a complaint under
42 U.S.C. § 1983against 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 color 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). 2
Document Info
Docket Number: 05-3381
Citation Numbers: 156 F. App'x 527
Judges: Barry, Smith, Nygaard
Filed Date: 12/8/2005
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/5/2024