Frederick Banks v., No. 23-1933 (3d Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT PRECEDENTIAL CLD-193 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 23-1933 ___________ In re: FREDERICK H. BANKS, Appellant ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Misc. Action No. 2-23-mc-00465) District Judge: Honorable Arthur J. Schwab ____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 August 10, 2023 Before: SHWARTZ, MATEY, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: August 24, 2023) _________ PER CURIAM OPINION * _________ Frederick Banks appeals the District Court’s order denying his motion for leave to file a complaint as well as its order denying his motion for reconsideration and motion for This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. * recusal. For the reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s orders. Due to his history of vexatious litigation, Banks is subject to an order by the District Court enjoining him from filing new complaints without first receiving leave to file them. Banks sought leave to file a complaint against the District Judge who oversaw his most recent criminal proceedings, including his resentencing. He sought monetary and injunctive relief. The District Court denied the motion for leave to file after determining that the complaint was legally frivolous and vexatious. Banks filed a notice of appeal as well as a motion for reconsideration and a motion to recuse the District Judge. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the appeal. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4. We agree with the District Court that Banks’s proposed complaint is frivolous and vexatious and that he was not entitled to have the District Judge recuse himself. Accordingly, for essentially the reasons given by the District Court, we will summarily affirm its orders. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355–56 (1978) (judges not civilly liable for judicial acts); Azubuko v. Royal, 443 F.3d 302, 303-04 (3d Cir. 2006); Securacomm Consulting, Inc. v. Securacom Inc., 224 F.3d 273, 278 (3d Cir. 2 2000) (explaining that a litigant’s displeasure with the District Court’s legal rulings is not an adequate basis for recusal). 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
