Third Circuit disposition — 231933np-pdf

CLD-193 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
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)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
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.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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 of 3 --

3
2000) (explaining that a litigant’s displeasure with the District Court’s legal rulings is not
an adequate basis for recusal).

-- 3 of 3 --