Frederick Silver v. Barclays Bank Delaware, et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 8, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-06112
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 FREDERICK SILVER, CASE NO. 25-cv-06112 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE, et al., 11 Defendant. 12

13 THIS MATTER is before the Court following Magistrate Judge David Christel’s 14 Order granting pro se plaintiff Frederick Silver leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 15 4. The Court must now decide whether Silver’s proposed complaint, Dkt. 5, states a 16 plausible claim. 17 A court should “deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears 18 from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.” 19 Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Tr., 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted); 20 see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An in forma pauperis complaint is frivolous if “it 21 ha[s] no arguable substance in law or fact.” Id. at 1370 (citing Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 22 1 527, 529 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 2 1984). 3 A pro se plaintiff’s complaint is to be construed liberally, but like any other

4 complaint it must nevertheless contain factual assertions sufficient to support a facially 5 plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic 6 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim for relief is facially plausible 7 when “the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 8 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “[A] plaintiff’s

9 obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than 10 labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will 11 not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative 12 level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations and footnotes omitted). This requires a 13 plaintiff to plead “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me

14 accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly at 555). 15 In order to state a plausible claim, a plaintiff must allege facts that allow the court 16 “to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 17 Id. 18 Silver brings a Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) claim against Barclays. Dkt. 5 at

19 4. He contends that, in December 2019, Barclays did not accurately report his credit to 20 consumer reporting agencies despite his full payments on his Barclays credit card. Id. at 21 3. Barclays allegedly did not reasonably investigate his account and failed to correct the 22 inaccurate reporting. Id. at 3–4. Silver claims he has experienced years of inaccurate 1 credit reporting, specifically “derogatory information about the Barclays Account,” and 2 therefore suffered “multiple credit denials, higher costs of credit, and has refrained from 3 applying for additional credit,” as well as “emotional distress, anxiety, reputational harm,

4 and loss of sleep.” Id. at 4. 5 Silver has not articulated a plausible claim. While he alleges Barclays failed to 6 reasonably investigate his account and continued to inaccurately report pending charges, 7 he does not include sufficient facts for the Court to infer that Barclays violated the 8 FCRA. Moreover, the statute of limitations on the FCRA is “5 years after the date on

9 which the violation . . . occurs.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681p(2). Silver was required to file his 10 claims by December 2024 at the latest. He instead filed on December 8, 2025. Dkt. 5. 11 Ordinarily, the Court will permit pro se litigants an opportunity to amend their 12 complaint to state a plausible claim. See United States v. Corinthian Colls., 655 F.3d 984, 13 995 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Dismissal without leave to amend is improper unless it is clear,

14 upon de novo review, that the complaint could not be saved by any 15 amendment.”). Because Silver cannot amend his complaint in any way to circumvent the 16 statute of limitations, the case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated this 8th day of January, 2026. A 19 20 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 21 United States District Judge