Hoskins, James v. TCF National Bank, No. 06-4261 (7th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted September 20, 2007* Decided September 21, 2007 Before Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge Hon. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge No. 06-4261 JAMES HOSKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TCF NATIONAL BANK, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin No. 06 C 868 Charles N. Clevert, Jr., Judge. ORDER Wisconsin inmate James Hoskins sued TCF National Bank under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that it paid out about $3,000 on approximately 40 fraudulent checks that were drawn on his account. The district court screened Hoskins s amended complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b)(1). * The appellee was not served with process in the district court and is not participating in this appeal. After an examination of the appellant s brief and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the appellant s brief and the record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). No. 06-4261 Page 2 On appeal Hoskins continues to press his contention that the bank violated his constitutional rights. But, as the district court observed, Hoskins cannot proceed with his federal claim under § 1983 because his allegations against the bank describe purely private business activities. The bank is not a state actor. See Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 50 (1999); Gayman v. Principal Fin. Servs., Inc., 311 F.3d 851, 852-53 (7th Cir. 2003); Mitchell v. Kirk, 20 F.3d 936, 938 (8th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the court properly dismissed Hoskins s complaint. The district court told Hoskins that he incurred one strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) for filing a complaint that fails to state a claim, and we note that he now has incurred a second strike for filing a frivolous appeal. AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
