Opinions of the United
2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
1-28-2009
Joanne Boyd v. Wachovia Bank NA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-3485
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
Recommended Citation
"Joanne Boyd v. Wachovia Bank NA" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1976.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1976
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
ALD-83 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-3485
___________
JOANNE BOYD,
Appellant
v.
WACHOVIA BANK NA;
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF PHILADELPHIA ORPHAN’S COURT
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 08-cv-03178)
District Judge: Honorable J. Curtis Joyner
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
January 23, 2009
Before: SLOVITER, FUENTES and JORDAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: January 28, 2009)
OPINION
PER CURIAM
Appellant Joanne Boyd, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, naming Wachovia Bank and the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia, Orphans’ Court as defendants. Appellant
alleged that the Superior Court of Pennsylvania and the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia violated her constitutional rights by failing to follow certain Pennsylvania
Rules of Appellate Procedure during the course of proceedings she initiated to challenge
Wachovia Bank’s final account of Appellant’s son’s finances in its role as Guardian of
his estate. The District Court granted Appellant in forma pauperis status and dismissed
her complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We agree
with the District Court that the state courts, as state entities, are entitled to immunity from
suit in federal court pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment. See Benn v. First Judicial
Dist. of Pa., 426 F.3d 233, 240-41 (3d Cir. 2005). Appellant fails to allege any claims
against Wachovia Bank in the instant action. Accordingly, we conclude that this appeal
presents no “substantial question,” and will summarily affirm the judgment of the District
Court. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4 & I.O.P. 10.6. Appellant’s motions to expand the District
Court record, for leave to correct clerical mistakes, and for leave to file a revised notice of
appeal are denied.
2