PHILADELPHIA – A federal appeals court has denied the petition of a Pittsburgh man who sought the opportunity to be considered a “next-friend” to the estate of deceased celebrity Anthony Bourdain, in suing National Public Radio and the Central Intelligence Agency.
On Feb. 25, a three-judge, per curiam panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied the petition from plaintiff Frederick Banks, a matter which originated in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania last summer.
On Nov. 7, Banks was found guilty after a federal jury trial of wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. He has yet to be sentenced. Prior to his conviction, Banks filed a form petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 on behalf of himself and as “next friend” to the estate of celebrity chef and author Anthony Bourdain.
“Banks alleged that he and Bourdain, who is deceased, were under illegal FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] electronic surveillance which ultimately resulted in not a ‘suicide’ but a remote assassination under Banks’ theory. Banks stated he and Bourdain were targeted by the CIA and sought disclosure of all FISA orders and claimed violations of due process and federal law,” the Third Circuit stated.
“Banks also claimed that NPR News, which he named as a respondent, has been falsely reporting Bourdain’s death as a suicide. In addition, he claimed that he was being unlawfully held beyond his maximum possible sentence in pre-trial detention because of the illegal FISA warrants and sought his release. He alleged that he has a high-pitched tone in each ear and that he is under illegal electronic surveillance.”
The District Court dismissed the case under vexatious-litigant orders entered in two other actions filed by Banks, as expanded by an order in a criminal case, in which Banks filed a habeas petition and motions as “next friend” of the defendant.
In the civil cases, the District Court found that Banks had “abused the judicial process by filing frivolous and duplicative lawsuits, designated him a vexatious litigant, and enjoined him from filing any complaint, lawsuit, or mandamus petition without authorization of the Court.”
In the criminal action, the District Court extended its vexatious-litigant order “to all filings made by Mr. Banks, in his name or under his known aliases, whether on his behalf or on behalf of anyone else," though the District Court noted that the order did not apply to filings in Banks’ active criminal case.
Banks then appealed, but the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court order.
According to the Third Circuit, though Banks argued the District Court erred because its vexatious-litigant orders do not apply to habeas corpus actions, the District Court extended its vexatious-litigant order to all filings by Banks other than those in his active criminal case.
“Even if the vexatious-litigant orders were limited to complaints, lawsuits, and mandamus petitions, we find no error in the District Court’s application of the orders here as Banks’ claims are not cognizable under Section 2241, and he may not circumvent the orders by filing a habeas petition,” the Third Circuit concluded.
“Moreover, Banks cannot litigate on behalf of Bourdain or his estate. Because this appeal does not raise a substantial question, we will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court.”
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit case 19-3212
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:19-cv-01168
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com