Timothy Omar Hankins v. Wells Fargo Bank, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina adopts a magistrate judge's Memorandum and Recommendation and grants the defendants' motions to dismiss. Claims against North Carolina and state officials are dismissed on Eleventh Amendment and judicial-immunity grounds, while the remaining claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 1589, and 1595 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are dismissed for lack of a private right of action, failure to state a claim, insufficient pleading, or untimeliness. The court overrules the plaintiff's objections and dismisses the claims against the moving defendants.

Holdings

1. Claims for monetary damages against North Carolina and its officials in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment absent state consent or a valid statutory abrogation.
2. Plaintiff's claims against Judges Michael Denning and John Brian Ratledge were barred by judicial immunity.
3. Federal criminal statutes 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 do not create a private right of action.
4. Plaintiff failed to state a claim under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589 and 1595 because he did not allege that he was a victim of trafficking, slavery, or involuntary servitude by any defendant.
5. Plaintiff failed to state a plausible § 1983 conspiracy claim because his complaint offered conclusory accusations, insufficient facts connecting the alleged conspirators, and no particularized facts concerning the alleged conspiracy or overt acts.
6. Plaintiff's § 1983 conspiracy claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations because the alleged real-estate and financial transactions occurred in or before December 2017.

Questions Presented

1. Whether claims against North Carolina and state officials in their official capacities were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.
2. Whether claims against state judges were barred by judicial immunity.
3. Whether 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 provide a private right of action.
4. Whether plaintiff stated a civil claim under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589 and 1595 without alleging that he was a victim of trafficking, slavery, or involuntary servitude.
5. Whether plaintiff plausibly pleaded a conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and satisfied Rule 9's particularity requirement for fraud-related allegations.
6. Whether plaintiff's § 1983 conspiracy claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.

Disposition

dismissed