Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Banks v. Pivnichny

United States District Court, D. Idaho

June 26, 2015

TIMOTHY PIVNICHNY, et. al., Defendants.


CANDY W. DALE, Magistrate Judge.


Plaintiff Frederick Banks, a resident of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, appears pro se in this matter. The complaint, filed on June 1, 2015, names seventy-eight defendants. The Clerk of Court conditionally filed Banks' complaint as a result of his in forma pauperis request. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915, this Court must review Plaintiff's in forma pauperis complaint to determine whether it should be summarily dismissed.

Plaintiff's complaint is subject to dismissal because this Court lacks jurisdiction. Because Plaintiff, the only party appearing in this case, has not consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge to enter final orders in this case, [1] the Court enters the following order directing the Clerk of the Court to reassign this matter to a District Judge for consideration of an order dismissing the complaint.


The various defendants named in the complaint include forty-four judges who are not judges of the District of Idaho; several United States Senators, including Hillary Rodham Clinton and Mitt Romney; the "United States Senate" and "Congress"; one newspaper; the CIA, including its director, and the office of Science and Technology; the FBI; President Obama; the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania; the Administrative Office of the United States Courts; the United States Probation Office; and several physicians and other named individuals, none of whom appear to reside in Idaho. According to the complaint, the claim arises out of events that occurred in 2003 and 2004, when Defendant Special Agent Timothy Pivnichny of the FBI[3] interviewed Plaintiff's fiancee, Meredith Bondi, in an alleged attempt to intimidate her and presumably incriminate Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that he reported this incident, but that an elaborate cover up ensued, involving judges and others. No other detail is provided.

Plaintiff further alleges that after the incident, Pivnichny:

used his skills again this time It was to repair and cause to repair of an Orbit II DVD/CD Copier made by Microboards. What Pivnichny didn't know then is that Plaintiff had called Microboards just prior to him confiscating the Microboards Orbit II Plaintiff called Microboards the manufacturer of the Orbit II to let them know that the machine never worked and that he needed to return it to get repaired or replaced. Microboards then sent Plaintiff a return authorization form to place in the box which Plaintiff did and sealed the box. However, when the Orbit II was next seen and demonstrated by Pivnichny amazingly the Orbit II worked. Pivnichny either fixed it or caused it to be fixed. In these two ways he set up Frederick H. Banks.

Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Booz Allen Hamilton and agents of the CIA began to bombard him "with a wireless signal to electronically harass him at the request of the FBI to retaliate for Banks having exposed the fact that Pivnichny set him up." Plaintiff apparently reported this information to the Defendant Pittsburgh Post Gazette, which instead of investigating, published "six separate articles in the Post Gazette lambasting Banks."

Plaintiff alleges that all of the Defendants named in the complaint knew or had reason to know that Pivnichny set up Plaintiff, because Plaintiff spent ten years writing to them and explaining to them what happened. Plaintiff seeks 500, 000, 000.00 for violations of his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Right to due process, and because the Sioux Treaty of Fort Laramie was violated. Plaintiff further alleges that each and every defendant acted "as bad men' in violation of the treaty when they either set Banks up or covered it up or refused to investigate Bank's allegations." Apparently, several of the named defendants recommended Banks receive mental health treatment.


1. Standard of Review

Pro se complaints, "however inartfully pleaded, " are held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Therefore, because Plaintiff proceeds pro se, the Court will construe his pleadings liberally and afford him the benefit of any doubt. Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc).

Section 1915(e) of Title 28 of the United States Code authorizes federal courts to dismiss claims filed in forma pauperis "at any time if the court determines that... the action... is frivolous or malicious... [or] fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court must dismiss a complaint or any portion thereof which states a claim that is frivolous or malicious, that fails to state a claim upon which relief may ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.