Taylor v. Unico Bank

IN 	THE 	UNITED 	STATES 	DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
NORTHERN DIVISION
JAMES 	CLIFFORD 	TAYLOR 	PLAINTIFF
V.
UNICO BANK
ORDER
DEFENDANT
1. 	Taylor's 	application 	to 	proceed 	in 	forma 	pauperis, 	Doc. 	1, 	is
granted. 	He 	reports 	no 	income 	or 	savings.
2. 	The 	Court 	must 	screen 	his 	complaint. 	28 U.S.C. § 	1915(e)(2).
Taylor 	says 	that 	Unico 	Bank 	closed 	his 	active 	bank 	account 	and 	kept 	his
money. 	He 	wants 	his 	money 	put 	back 	in 	his 	account, 	saying he 	suffered
billions 	of 	dollars 	in 	damages. Taylor 	gives 	no 	other details.
3. 	The 	Court needs 	more 	information 	to 	evaluate his case.
Taylor hasn't 	specified 	how much 	money 	was 	taken, 	when 	his 	account
was 	closed, 	or 	what 	communications 	he had with 	Unico. 	He 	did 	not
provide any 	documents 	about 	his 	account 	or 	its 	closure. 	The 	Court 	also
questions 	its 	jurisdiction 	to 	handle this 	case. 	It's unclear whether the
parties 	are 	citizens 	of different 	states. 	Plus the 	claimed 	damages 	seem
fanciful, 	so 	the 	amount 	in 	controversy 	is 	unclear, 	too. 	And the 	Court
sees 	no 	question 	of 	federal 	law.
No. 3:25-cv-235-DPM
Case 3:25-cv-00235-DPM Document 3 Filed 12/03/25 Page 1 of 2

4. 	Taylor 	must 	file an amended 	complaint 	with 	more 	details 	by
5 	January 2026. 	If he 	doesn't, 	the 	Court 	will dismiss his complaint
without 	prejudice. 	LOCAL RULE 	5.5(c)(2).
So 	Ordered.
- 	/ 	/' 	L.	f
D.P. 	Marshall 	Jr
United 	States District 	Judge
3 	cth 	wz5
-2-
Case 3:25-cv-00235-DPM Document 3 Filed 12/03/25 Page 2 of 2