Akouala v. USCIS et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA (EASTERN DIVISION)
Christian Akouala,1
Plaintiff,
v.
USCIS Citizenship and Immigration, First
Bank, Chex Systems, and Key Bank,
Defendants.
Civil No. 3:23-cv-0196 (NEB/DJF)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on preliminary review of Plaintiff Christian Akouala’s
Complaint (ECF No. 4.) For the following reasons, the Court recommends dismissing this action
as frivolous.2
Mr. Akouala commenced this action in October 2023 by filing his Complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the District of North Dakota. (ECF No. 4.) The Complaint names four
defendants: (1) “USCIS Citizenship and Immigration,” which the Court construes as referring to
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; (2) “First Bank,” which the Court construes as
referring to the Colorado corporation FirstBank Inc.; (3) “Chex Systems,” which the Court
construes as referring to Chex Systems, Inc.; and (4) “Key Bank,” which the Court construes as
1 The Clerk of Court for the District of North Dakota docketed the Complaint under
Plaintiff “Christion Akouala”. Based on the Court’s review of the filings in this case (see, e.g.,
ECF No. 4 at 2; ECF No.10) and other cases (see, e.g., United States v. Akouala, 23-cr-00354
(NEB/DJF)), the correct spelling of Plaintiff’s name appears to be “Christian Akouala”.
2 On March 19, 2024, the Honorable Steven M. Colloton, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, designated and assigned this matter to U.S. District Judge Nancy
J. Brasel. (ECF No. 11.) On March 28, 2024, Judge Brasel appointed the undersigned to this case.
(See ECF No. 12.)
Case 3:23-cv-00196-NB-DJF Document 13 Filed 04/11/24 Page 1 of 3

2
referring to the Ohio corporation KeyBank Inc. (See ECF No. 4 at 1-2.3) The Complaint’s
substantive allegations are not entirely clear. Generally speaking, Mr. Akouala vaguely asserts
various violations of his rights and his ability to use certain financial services. (See id. at 3-4.)
In lieu of paying a filing fee, Mr. Akouala sought permission to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) in this matter. (ECF No. 1.) U.S. Magistrate Judge Alice R. Senechal granted Mr.
Akouala’s request. (ECF No. 3.) Under the federal statute governing federal court matters
proceeding IFP, however, “[n]otwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have
been paid, the court shall dismiss [a case proceeding IFP] at any time if the court determines
that … the action … is frivolous[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A case is frivolous when “it lacks
an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)); see
also, e.g., Jones v. Norris, 310 F.3d 610, 612 (8th Cir. 2002) (citing Neitzke). “When a complaint
lacks any allegations explaining what a given defendant did that creates legal liability, the
complaint lacks an arguable basis in fact as to that defendant.” Swenson v. Hable, No. 21-cv-1011
(SRN/HB), 2021 WL 34767200, at *2 (D. Minn. July 15, 2021) (citing cases), report and
recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 3472694 (D. Minn. Aug. 6, 2021).
As presently pleaded, the Complaint is factually frivolous because it contains no specific
factual allegations about any of the named Defendants. (See ECF No. 4 at 3-4.) Mr. Akouala
makes only vague accusations against no specific Defendant. (See id.) The Court cannot
determine which Defendant did what, or what cause of action each is supposedly responsible for.
The Court therefore recommends dismissing this action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915
as frivolous.
3 For ease of reference the Court uses the CM/ECF pagination to cite documents.
Case 3:23-cv-00196-NB-DJF Document 13 Filed 04/11/24 Page 2 of 3

3
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT Plaintiff Christian Akouala’s Complaint (ECF No.[4]), be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) as frivolous.
Dated: April 11, 2024 s/ Dulce J. Foster
DULCE J. FOSTER
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the District
Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written objections to a magistrate
judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being served a copy” of the
Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to those objections within 14 days after being
served a copy of the objections. See Local Rule 72.2(b)(2). All objections and responses must
comply with the word or line limits set forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).
Case 3:23-cv-00196-NB-DJF Document 13 Filed 04/11/24 Page 3 of 3