Adams v. Equifax

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: May 24, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00506
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 BRANDON ADAMS, Case No. 2:23-cv-00506-APG-EJY

5 Plaintiff, ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 6 v. Re: ECF Nos. 1-1, 6 7 EQUIFAX,

8 Defendant.

9 10 Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Complaint and application to proceed in forma 11 pauperis (“IFP”). ECF Nos. 1-1, 6. Plaintiff’s IFP application is complete and granted below. 12 I. SCREENING THE COMPLAINT 13 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint 14 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and 15 dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 16 granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 17 1915A(b)(1), (2). However, pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica 18 Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 19 A federal court must dismiss a plaintiff’s claim if the action “is frivolous or malicious, fails 20 to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 21 immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The standard for dismissing a complaint for 22 failure to state a claim is established by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court applies 23 the same standard under § 1915 when reviewing the adequacy of a complaint or an amended 24 complaint. When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915(e), the plaintiff should be given leave 25 to amend the complaint with directions to cure its deficiencies unless it is clear from the face of the 26 complaint that the deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 27 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 1 All or part of a complaint may be dismissed sua sponte if the plaintiff’s claims lack an 2 arguable basis either in law or in fact. This includes claims based on legal conclusions that are 3 untenable as well as claims based on fanciful factual allegations (e.g., fantastic or delusional 4 scenarios). Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989); see also McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 5 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 Plaintiff’s Complaint identifies credit reporting agency Equifax as the only Defendant in this 8 action. ECF No. 1-1 at 1. Plaintiff claims federal question as the basis for jurisdiction and thereafter 9 lists federal statutes, constitutional provisions, federal case law, and the phrase “Hard Credit Inquires 10 with NO CONSENT.” Id. at 3 (emphasis in original). As his statement of a claim, Plaintiff asserts 11 there were hard credit inquiries without consent and a “FRAUDULENT REPOSSESSION.” Id. at 12 4 (emphasis in original). Plaintiff refers the Court to “documents and Affidavits” attached to his 13 Complaint. Id. Plaintiff’s requested relief includes removal of his 2013 Infiniti G37 from his credit 14 report and a “hard inquiry” by the Clark County District Attorney into all student loan debt 15 companies with whom he had dealings. Id. The attachments to Plaintiff’s Complaint include a form 16 1099-C, several news articles, a submission to Equifax concerning a disputed item on a credit report, 17 an automated response from Equifax, and an affidavit with the caption for a case other than the 18 instant case before this Court. ECF No. 1-2. 19 Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a decipherable cause of action upon which relief may be 20 granted. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a complaint contain a “short and plain 21 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Rule 8(d)(1) further requires 22 “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). The purpose of 23 Rule 8 is to enable the Court to determine whether the plaintiff has stated “a plausible claim for 24 relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (internal citation omitted). A plausible claim 25 for relief must contain sufficient factual allegations (i.e., names, dates, and facts) and legal 26 conclusions (i.e., specific laws defendants allegedly violated) that create a reasonable inference of 27 liability. Id. at 678-79. A liberal construction of a complaint filed pro se may not be used to supply 1 12 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997), quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 2 1982). 3 Plaintiff’s Complaint does not comply with the requirements of Rule 8. There are a variety 4 of causes of action available to civil plaintiffs that may arise from a host of different violations of 5 the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. However, nowhere in his 6 Complaint does Plaintiff reference a provision of the FCRA under which he seeks relief. Further, 7 Plaintiff does not supply any facts describing what violation of the FCRA Equifax has purportedly 8 committed against him. Although the Court liberally construes complaints filed by pro se plaintiffs, 9 there is not enough information provided to allow Equifax the chance to formulate an adequate 10 response to Plaintiff’s Complaint. The majority of the text in Plaintiff’s Complaint and the content 11 in his attachments do not advance any attempt at a legal claim and are simply garbled words and 12 phrases. It is not the role of the Court to translate indecipherable text into a cognizable legal claim 13 on Plaintiff’s behalf. 14 Based on the foregoing, the Court recommends dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint without 15 prejudice and with leave to amend, as amendment is not necessarily futile. 16 III. ORDER 17 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 18 No. 6) is GRANTED. 19 IV. RECOMMENDATION 20 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) be dismissed 21 without prejudice. 22 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff be given one additional opportunity to 23 amend his Complaint. 24 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that if Plaintiff chooses to do so, he must file his 25 amended complaint no later than June 26, 2023. The amended complaint must be titled “FIRST 26 AMENDED COMPLAINT” and must allege all facts and all claims Plaintiff seeks to assert. The 27 Court cannot refer back to Plaintiff’s original Complaint when determining if the amended complaint ] IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's failure to comply with th 2 || Recommendation may result in a further recommendation to dismiss this action in its entirety. 3 DATED this 24th day of May, 2023. Gaara Apauscl ab CIMY Va ed oS □□ □□□□ 5 ELAYN 3 YOUGH/ H (od ‘ UNITEDSTATES MAGIS TE JUDGE

7 NOTICE 8 Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2, any objection to this Finding and Recommendation must | 9 || in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days. The Supreme Court h 10 || held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to fi 11 |} objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has al 12 || held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly addre 13 || and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order and/or appe 14 || factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th C 15 || 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28