Carl Morgan v. Lobel Financial Corp.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: December 18, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-01729
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 CARL MORGAN, Case No. 1:25-cv-01729-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT AND 13 GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED v. COMPLAINT 14 LOBEL FINANCIAL CORP., (ECF No. 1) 15 Defendant. THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 16 17 On December 4, 2025, Plaintiff Carl Morgan, who is proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis, filed a complaint against Lobel Financial Corporation. (ECF No. 1.) On December 9, 19 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 5.) The 20 Court now undertakes screening of the complaint. 21 I. 22 SCREENING REQUIREMENT 23 The in forma pauperis statute provides that a court shall dismiss a case if, inter alia, the 24 complaint is “frivolous or malicious,” or “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 25 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law 26 or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this 27 standard, the court accepts as true the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and construes those allegations in the light most favorable to the 1 plaintiff. See id. at 326-27. 2 Pleadings by pro se litigants are liberally construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 3 (9th Cir. 2010). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable 4 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 5 624 (9th Cir. 1981). To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege 6 enough facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 7 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads 8 factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable 9 for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A pro se litigant is 10 entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity to amend unless the 11 complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. Cato v. U.S., 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th 12 Cir. 1995). 13 II. 14 COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS 15 Plaintiff brings this action against Lobel Financial Corporation and has indicated that the 16 basis for subject-matter jurisdiction is federal question. (ECF No. 1, p. 1.) In his complaint, 17 Plaintiff alleges claims arising under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and contends that “Defendant 18 willfully violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) six times by failing to conduct any reasonable 19 investigation.” (Id.) Plaintiff does not provide facts concerning the alleged violation; instead, he 20 states, “(Same facts as before- six separate CFPB disputes listed as Counts 1-6 with Exhibits A-F 21 attached).” In his prayer for relief, Plaintiff prays for: “(a) statutory damages of $1,000 per 22 violation x 6= $6,000; (b) actual damages of $10,000; (c) punitive damages of $50,000; (d) costs 23 and attorney’s fees; (e) such other relief as the Court deems proper.” (Id. at p. 2.) 24 III. 25 DISCUSSION 26 In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, a court uses the same pleading 27 standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). A complaint need only contain “a short 1 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a 2 cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 662 3 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “Sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is 4 not sufficient, and “facts that are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability” falls short of 5 satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 6 Here, the Court finds that the complaint does not state any valid claims for relief. The 7 complaint contains no factual allegations beyond vague references to the Fair Credit Reporting 8 Act. Under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is plaintiff’s responsibility to set 9 forth, “a short and plain statement of the claim” showing that he is entitled to relief. While a 10 plaintiff may attach and incorporate exhibits to supplement the allegations, “these attachments 11 cannot take the place of well-pleaded factual allegations that must appear in the body of the 12 complaint.” Hurtado v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 2014 WL 7337542, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2014). 13 Although the complaint, as currently pleaded, fails to satisfy Rule 8(a), Plaintiff could allege 14 additional facts and thus leave to amend is not futile. Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiff an 15 opportunity to file an amended complaint. 16 IV. 17 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 18 For the reasons discussed herein, Plaintiff fails to state any cognizable claims for relief 19 and will be granted leave to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies identified in this 20 order, if he believes he can do so in good faith. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th 21 Cir. 2000). If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, that complaint can be brief, Fed. 22 R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of 23 Plaintiff’s constitutional rights or violations of state law. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79. Importantly, 24 the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative 25 level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). Additionally, Plaintiff may not change 26 the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in her amended complaint. 27 Finally, Plaintiff is informed that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 1 | complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This requirement exists 2 | because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See 3 | Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). 4 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff a complaint for civil case form; 6 2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file 7 an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this 8 order; 9 3. The amended complaint, including attachments, shall not exceed twenty-five (25) 10 pages in length; and 11 4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the 12 Court will recommend to a district judge that this action be dismissed consistent 13 with the reasons stated in this order. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. Se 16 | Dated: _ December 17, 2025 " STANLEY A. BOONE 17 United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28