Frederick Banks v. Donald J. Trump, No. 17-7368 (4th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7368 FREDERICK BANKS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DONALD J. TRUMP; IVANKA TRUMP; JEFF SESSIONS; STEVE BANNON; PAUL RYAN; MITCH MCCONNELL; NANCY PELOSI; CHARLES SCHUMER; DR. CAHILL; DR. ALLISSA MARQUEZ; DR. LOGAN GRADDY; DR. HEATHER ROSS; DR. ROBERT WETTSTEIN; JUDGE MARK HORNAK; ROBERT CESSAR; ADRIAN ROE; CHRISTOPHER ASHER WRAY; SCOTT SMITH; ROBERT WERNER; SEAN LANGFORD; FELICIA LANGFORD; JOY FLOWERS CONTI; NORA FISCHER; CATHY BISSOON; MIKE POMPEO; CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY; GOVERNOR OF NORTH CAROLINA; GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA; MIKE PENCE; SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES; JOHN ROBERTS; US MARSHAL SERVICE; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:17-ct-03060-BO) Submitted: January 30, 2018 Decided: February 2, 2018 Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frederick Hamilton Banks, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Frederick Banks challenges the district court’s order dismissing—under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2012)—what it construed to be an action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The district court also recognized that to the extent Banks sought release from custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012), Banks failed to exhaust his available remedies. Banks challenges on appeal only the district court’s exhaustion holding, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b), which we conclude is correct. Accordingly, we grant Banks’ application to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm. See Banks v. Trump, No. 5:17-ct-03060-BO (E.D.N.C. Sept. 27, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 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.