Michael Fernando Clark v. US Bancorp/U.S. Bank
- Donovan Frank
- 0:25-cv-03986
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In Clark v. US Bancorp/U.S. Bank, Judge Frank denied pro se Plaintiff Michael Fernando Clark's motion to send the case back to state court and granted U.S. Bank's motion to dismiss, throwing out all of Clark's claims — including race discrimination and disability discrimination — without prejudice because his complaint lacked enough specific facts to support any of them.
Pro se litigants who file civil rights lawsuits alleging race or disability discrimination in banking services; individuals bringing federal civil rights claims who must include specific, concrete facts — not just general assertions — in their complaints to survive dismissal.
What happened
In Clark v. US Bancorp/U.S. Bank (Civil No. 25-3986), Michael Fernando Clark, representing himself, sued U.S. Bank in Minnesota state court after he says he was denied banking services at a St. Paul branch on January 25, 2022, on the basis of race. He brought eight claims under a mix of federal and state laws, including race discrimination statutes, disability discrimination statutes, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, seeking money damages and injunctive relief.
After U.S. Bank moved the case to federal court, Clark asked the court to send it back to state court, arguing there was no federal issue and that the parties were not from different states. The court rejected this argument, finding that because Clark himself had included six claims based on federal statutes in his complaint, the court had the authority — called federal question jurisdiction — to hear the case. The court also kept the two state-law claims under its authority to hear related claims in the same lawsuit.
Judge Frank then addressed U.S. Bank's request to dismiss the case entirely. The court found that Clark's complaint contained only vague, bare assertions — for example, that he was 'treated differently and denied services on the basis of race' — without any specific facts explaining what service was denied, how he was treated differently from other customers, or how any denial was connected to race or disability. Because the complaint failed to provide enough factual detail to make any of the claims plausible or to put U.S. Bank on fair notice of what it was accused of doing, all claims were dismissed without prejudice, meaning Clark may potentially refile with a more detailed complaint.
The detailed version
- Michael Fernando Clark v. US Bancorp/U.S. Bank, Civil No. 25-3986 (DWF/ECW), United States District Court, District of Minnesota
- Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge
- December 19, 2025
Background
Pro se (self-represented) Plaintiff Michael Fernando Clark filed suit in Minnesota state court against U.S. Bank, alleging that on January 25, 2022, he was denied banking services at a St. Paul, Minnesota branch on the basis of race. His complaint asserted eight causes of action: (1) violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) for race discrimination; (2) violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (federal civil rights statute prohibiting race discrimination in contracts); (3) violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691; (4) violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; (5) constitutional violations via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (federal statute allowing suits for civil rights violations under color of state law); (6) violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12182; (7) violation of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794; and (8) additional MHRA violations under Minn. Stat. §§ 363A.11, 363A.12, and 363A.17. Clark sought compensatory damages for emotional distress, humiliation, and financial harm; punitive damages; injunctive relief; and costs for future mental health and addiction treatment.
U.S. Bank removed the case to federal court on October 16, 2025, asserting it is a citizen of Ohio. U.S. Bank then moved to dismiss all claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a plausible claim. Clark filed an amended motion to remand the case back to state court.
Motion to Remand
Clark argued there was no federal question jurisdiction because his claims raised no substantial federal question, and that complete diversity of citizenship between the parties did not exist. The court applied the 'well-pleaded complaint rule,' which establishes federal question jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331) when federal law creates a cause of action or when the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on a substantial question of federal law. The court found that Clark's own complaint explicitly stated six causes of action arising under federal statutes, which is sufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction regardless of Clark's later attempt to characterize his claims as purely state-law based. The court also retained supplemental jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)) over the two MHRA state-law claims because they arose from the same facts as the federal claims. Clark's amended motion to remand was denied. The court noted it did not need to decide whether diversity jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332) also existed.
Motion to Dismiss
The court applied the pleading standards from Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), which require a complaint to contain enough facts to state a claim that is 'plausible on its face' — more than labels, conclusions, or formulaic recitations of legal elements. Although pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972)), they must still allege actual facts rather than bare legal conclusions.
The court found that Clark's factual allegations — essentially that he attempted some unspecified banking activity, was treated differently and denied service on the basis of race, suffered exacerbation of mental health conditions, and that U.S. Bank engaged in systemic racial profiling — were insufficient. The court identified several specific deficiencies: (1) no specific facts supporting any individual claim; (2) no identification of the particular service denied; (3) no facts connecting any denied service to racial discrimination; (4) no facts showing Clark was treated differently than a similarly situated customer of another race; (5) no facts showing Clark was qualified or eligible for any denied service; and (6) no facts connecting the denial of services to Clark's alleged mental health conditions. The court concluded the complaint contained only 'naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement' and did not put U.S. Bank on adequate notice of the substance of the claims.
Ruling
U.S. Bank's motion to dismiss was granted. Clark's amended motion to remand was denied. All eight of Clark's claims were dismissed without prejudice, meaning Clark is not barred by this ruling from refiling a new complaint with sufficient factual detail. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.