Pi�a v. Bank of Am. Corp.

── Pi�a v. Bank of Am. Corp. ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: April 22, 2026 Category: General 25-1698-cv Piña v. Bank of Am. Corp. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 22nd day of April, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: SUSAN L. CARNEY, BETH ROBINSON, MYRNA PÉREZ, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ FREDERICK PIÑA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 25-1698 BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendant. * _____________________________________ * The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption as reflected above. FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Frederick Piña, pro se, Staten Island, NY. FOR DEFENDANT: No appearance. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Stanton, Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. Frederick Piña, representing himself, appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action against Bank of America pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Piña alleged that Bank of America put “holds” on his bank accounts pursuant to an allegedly improper tax warrant issued by the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (“NYSDTF”). He invoked 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing that Bank of America violated his due process rights, and also asserted various other federal and state law claims. On its own initiative, the district court dismissed his complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law 2 claims, and granted leave to amend. Piña v. Bank of America, 24-cv-8894, 2025 WL 1580762 (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2025). Piña filed an amended complaint that largely reiterated his allegations and added a federal claim under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (“EFTA”) and several new state law claims. The district court concluded that he failed to state a § 1983 or EFTA claim and on its own initiative dismissed the amended complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B), without further leave to amend. Piña v. Bank of America, 24-cv-8894, 2025 WL 1865135 (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2025). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. 1 We review without deference a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Milan v. Wertheimer, 808 F.3d 961, 963 (2d Cir. 2015). We review the decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction for abuse of discretion. Kolari v. New York-Presbyterian Hospital, 455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2006). We review without deference the denial of leave to amend based on futility. Panthe