McGee v. PlainsCapital Bank — Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal of discrimination, nationality, and treaty claims

Unreported / Non-Citable

Background

Joanthony McGee sued PlainsCapital Bank, asserting claims under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a), and the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and Morocco.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. McGee appealed the dismissal, and the Fifth Circuit reviewed it de novo.

The Court’s Holding

The Fifth Circuit held that McGee failed to state an ECOA claim because his allegation that PlainsCapital Bank discriminated against him based on membership in a protected class was conclusory and unsupported by sufficient facts.

The court also held that McGee failed to state a claim under § 1503(a), which provides a remedy after a federal agency or department denies a right or privilege of citizenship on the ground that the claimant is not a U.S. national. McGee did not allege the required agency or departmental action.

Finally, the court held that McGee’s claim under the Treaty of Peace and Friendship rested on an indisputably meritless legal theory. It therefore affirmed the district court’s judgment in full.

Key Takeaways

• A conclusory allegation of protected-class discrimination, without supporting facts, does not state an ECOA claim.
• A claim under 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a) requires a federal agency or department to have denied a citizenship-related right or privilege because the claimant was considered not to be a U.S. national.
• A court may dismiss as frivolous a treaty claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.

Why It Matters

The decision reinforces that even complaints filed without prepayment of fees must allege concrete facts supporting each element of a claim. Merely invoking discrimination, nationality law, or an international treaty does not avoid dismissal.

For ECOA litigants in particular, the ruling underscores the need to plead facts connecting an adverse credit decision to a protected characteristic rather than relying on a bare assertion of discrimination.