In re: Frederick H. Banks v. COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY On Appeal From the United States District Court For the Western…

DLD-120 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
No. 06-1837
________________
IN RE: FREDERICK H. BANKS,
Debtor
FREDERICK H. BANKS,
Appellant
v.
COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY
________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No.05-cv-602)
District Judge: Honorable Joy Flowers Conti
________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action
Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
February 8, 2007
BEFORE: BARRY, AMBRO and FISHER, Circuit Judges
(Filed March 2, 2007)
________________
OPINION
________________
PER CURIAM
On November 1, 2001, Frederick H. Banks filed for bankruptcy protection under
Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. The appointed trustee in bankruptcy filed a report of

-- 1 of 4 --

2
no assets. In 2005, Banks instituted many adversary actions. In some of them, he named
as defendants victims and witnesses of crimes for which the United States prosecuted
him. In those actions and other similar cases, he sued individuals and companies for
purported frauds, conversions, and the like occurring after he had filed for bankruptcy.
Banks also sued the County of Allegheny, alleging violations of state tort law and
his federal constitutional rights relating to the conditions of his confinement in the
Allegheny County Jail. Banks largely did not specify when the purported violations
occurred, although he did allege that intrusive searches took place in October and
November 2004 and in February 2005. The County of Allegheny filed a motion to
dismiss Banks’ complaint for lack of jurisdiction, or, in the alternative, for failure to state
a claim upon which relief could be granted.
The Bankruptcy Court grouped Banks’ suit against the County of Allegheny with
his other adversary actions and dismissed them all in a single order. The Bankruptcy
Court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the adversary actions because
they related only to post-petition acts unrelated to the administration of Banks’
bankruptcy case. Banks appealed to the District Court.
The District Court affirmed the order dismissing the adversary actions, including
the suit against the County of Allegheny. The District Court determined that the
Bankruptcy Court lacked jurisdiction because Banks’ claims arose post-petition. The
District Court noted that even if the claims had arisen before Banks filed for bankruptcy
under Chapter 7, only the bankruptcy trustee, not Banks, would have had standing to

-- 2 of 4 --

3
pursue claims that were property of the estate. Banks appeals.
We will summarily affirm because no substantial question is presented on appeal.
See L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. The District Court had jurisdiction to review the
Bankruptcy Court’s order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a), and we have jurisdiction to
review the District Court’s order under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) & 1291. We exercise the
same standard of review as the District Court, subjecting the Bankruptcy Court’s legal
determinations to plenary review and reviewing its factual findings for clear error. See In
re United Healthcare Sys., 396 F.3d 247, 249 (3d Cir. 2005).
As to the intrusive search claims, the Bankruptcy Court was correct in determining
that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Banks’ claims arose post-petition.
Banks alleged that the searches occurred in 2004 and 2005, long after he had filed for
Chapter 7 protection. However, the Bankruptcy Court erred in concluding, on the basis
of the complaint, that all of the claims against the County of Allegheny arose after Banks
had filed for bankruptcy. Banks did not indicate when any of the other purported
violations took place.
Nonetheless, even to the extent that Banks’ claims arose before he filed for
bankruptcy, the Bankruptcy Court properly dismissed Banks’ suit. Banks did not have
standing to pursue his claims. See Cain v. Hyatt, 101 B.R. 440, 442 (E.D. Pa.) (“[A]fter
the appointment of a trustee, a Chapter 7 debtor no longer has standing to pursue a cause
of action which existed at the time the Chapter 7 petition was filed.”) The Chapter 7
trustee was the only person with authority to bring such a cause of action. See id.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
In conclusion, the Bankruptcy Court did not err in dismissing Banks’ complaint for
lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we will affirm.

-- 4 of 4 --