1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL LEON SMITH, JR. No. 2:25-cv-02629-TLN-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 EXPERIAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Michael Leon Smith, Jr., is proceeding pro se in this matter, which is referred to 18 the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has filed 19 a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and has submitted a declaration listing 20 his income and expenses and averring an inability to pay the costs of this proceeding. The motion 21 to proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) will therefore be granted. However, for the reasons provided below, 22 the Court finds Plaintiff’s complaint is legally deficient and will grant Plaintiff leave to file an 23 amended complaint. 24 I. SCREENING 25 A. Legal Standard 26 The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 27 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 28 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In 1 reviewing the complaint, the Court is guided by the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil 2 Procedure. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available online at www.uscourts.gov/rules- 3 policies/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure. 4 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a “short and 5 plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed in this 6 court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled 7 to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the relief 8 sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Forms are available to help pro se plaintiffs organize their complaint in 10 the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), 11 Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 12 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 13 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 14 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 15 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the 16 plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von 17 Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. 18 denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 19 The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint 20 states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court 21 must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must 22 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a 23 less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94. However, the 24 court need not accept as true legal conclusions, even if cast as factual allegations. See Moss v. 25 U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). A formulaic recitation of the elements of 26 a cause of action does not suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 27 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 28 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to 1 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has 2 facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 3 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 4 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity 5 to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Akhtar v. 6 Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1213 (9th Cir. 2012). 7 B. The Complaint 8 Plaintiff’s complaint is scarcely two pages in length. ECF No. 1. It names as Defendants: 9 1) Experian Information Solutions; 2) Equifax Information Services, LLC; and 3) TransUnion. 10 Id. at 1. Plaintiff brings the action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 11 et seq. Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants” collectively reported inaccurate information. Id. at ¶ 9. 12 Plaintiff alleges there were “errors” and that he “disputed these inaccuracies.” Id. at ¶¶ 10-11. 13 Plaintiff claims he was denied credit. Id. at ¶ 13. Plaintiff seeks actual damages up to $75,000, 14 statutory and punitive damages, and attorney fees. Id. at 2. 15 C. Analysis 16 Plaintiff’s complaint does not comply with Rule 8 and fails to state a claim in that it 17 merely pleads violation of the FCRA in conclusory fashion. There are no dates alleged, and 18 Plaintiff does not meaningfully describe any of the alleged “errors” or “inaccuracies.” ECF No. 1 19 at ¶¶10-11. Plaintiff does not allege what “false data” was allegedly published. Id. at ¶ 12. 20 Plaintiff alleges that he was denied credit, but again there are no factual details supplied 21 concerning the application for credit or the reason for denial. The complaint fails to adequately 22 put Defendants on notice of the claims against them. 23 The purpose of the FCRA is “to ensure fair and accurate credit reporting, promote efficiency in 24 the banking system, and protect consumer privacy.” Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 25 52 (2007). The FCRA regulates credit reporting agencies to guarantee that consumer information 26 is assembled, evaluated, and disseminated with “fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the 27 consumer's right to privacy.” Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th 28 Cir. 2009) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1681(a)(4)). The “FCRA imposes duties on the credit furnishers, 1 which are the sources that provide information to credit reporting agencies, to ensure accurate 2 credit reporting.” Arnold v. Bay Finance Co., 2023 WL 2088460 (E.D.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL LEON SMITH, JR. No. 2:25-cv-02629-TLN-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 EXPERIAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Michael Leon Smith, Jr., is proceeding pro se in this matter, which is referred to 18 the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has filed 19 a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and has submitted a declaration listing 20 his income and expenses and averring an inability to pay the costs of this proceeding. The motion 21 to proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) will therefore be granted. However, for the reasons provided below, 22 the Court finds Plaintiff’s complaint is legally deficient and will grant Plaintiff leave to file an 23 amended complaint. 24 I. SCREENING 25 A. Legal Standard 26 The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 27 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 28 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In 1 reviewing the complaint, the Court is guided by the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil 2 Procedure. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available online at www.uscourts.gov/rules- 3 policies/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure. 4 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a “short and 5 plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed in this 6 court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled 7 to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the relief 8 sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Forms are available to help pro se plaintiffs organize their complaint in 10 the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), 11 Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 12 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 13 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 14 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 15 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the 16 plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von 17 Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. 18 denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 19 The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint 20 states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court 21 must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must 22 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a 23 less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94. However, the 24 court need not accept as true legal conclusions, even if cast as factual allegations. See Moss v. 25 U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). A formulaic recitation of the elements of 26 a cause of action does not suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 27 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 28 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to 1 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has 2 facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 3 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 4 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity 5 to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Akhtar v. 6 Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1213 (9th Cir. 2012). 7 B. The Complaint 8 Plaintiff’s complaint is scarcely two pages in length. ECF No. 1. It names as Defendants: 9 1) Experian Information Solutions; 2) Equifax Information Services, LLC; and 3) TransUnion. 10 Id. at 1. Plaintiff brings the action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 11 et seq. Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants” collectively reported inaccurate information. Id. at ¶ 9. 12 Plaintiff alleges there were “errors” and that he “disputed these inaccuracies.” Id. at ¶¶ 10-11. 13 Plaintiff claims he was denied credit. Id. at ¶ 13. Plaintiff seeks actual damages up to $75,000, 14 statutory and punitive damages, and attorney fees. Id. at 2. 15 C. Analysis 16 Plaintiff’s complaint does not comply with Rule 8 and fails to state a claim in that it 17 merely pleads violation of the FCRA in conclusory fashion. There are no dates alleged, and 18 Plaintiff does not meaningfully describe any of the alleged “errors” or “inaccuracies.” ECF No. 1 19 at ¶¶10-11. Plaintiff does not allege what “false data” was allegedly published. Id. at ¶ 12. 20 Plaintiff alleges that he was denied credit, but again there are no factual details supplied 21 concerning the application for credit or the reason for denial. The complaint fails to adequately 22 put Defendants on notice of the claims against them. 23 The purpose of the FCRA is “to ensure fair and accurate credit reporting, promote efficiency in 24 the banking system, and protect consumer privacy.” Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 25 52 (2007). The FCRA regulates credit reporting agencies to guarantee that consumer information 26 is assembled, evaluated, and disseminated with “fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the 27 consumer's right to privacy.” Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th 28 Cir. 2009) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1681(a)(4)). The “FCRA imposes duties on the credit furnishers, 1 which are the sources that provide information to credit reporting agencies, to ensure accurate 2 credit reporting.” Arnold v. Bay Finance Co., 2023 WL 2088460 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2023). 3 In his “claims for relief” section of the complaint, plaintiff only includes the label of his 4 claims, and no supporting factual allegations: 1) FCRA, § 1681e(b): failure to assure maximum 5 possible accuracy; 2) FCRA, § 1681i: failure to reinvestigate disputed information; and 3) FCRA, 6 § 1681s-2(b): continued inaccurate furnishing after notice. ECF No. 1 at 2. Section 1681s-2(b) 7 “does create a cause of action for a consumer against a furnisher of credit information.” Nelson v. 8 Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp., 282 F.3d 1057, 1058 (9th Cir. 2002). A plaintiff may also bring 9 a claim under § 1681i’s reinvestigation provision, however, the plaintiff must make a prima facie 10 showing that an actual inaccuracy existed. See Carvalho v. Equifax, 629 F.3d 876, 890 (9th Cir. 11 2010) (“Although the FCRA’s reinvestigation provision, 15 U.S.C. § 1681i, does not on its face 12 require that an actual inaccuracy exist for a plaintiff to state a claim, many courts, including our 13 own, have imposed such a requirement.”). Plaintiff could also potentially pursue a claim under § 14 1681e(b). See Guimond v. Trans Union, 45 F.3d 1329, 1333 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Liability under § 15 1681e(b) is predicated on the reasonableness of the credit reporting agency’s procedures in 16 obtaining credit information.”). 17 Plaintiff’s complaint is not required to contain detailed factual allegations, however in its 18 current form the complaint is too lacking in facts to state a plausible claim and to put Defendants 19 on notice. “[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require detailed factual 20 allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me 21 accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation and quotation omitted). “A 22 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to 23 draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. 24 (emphasis added). 25 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court “shall dismiss the case at any time” if it fails to state 26 a claim on which relief may be granted. However, Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and a pro se 27 litigant should be given leave to amend unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies cannot be 28 cured by amendment. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012). Plaintiff has not 1 alleged sufficient factual content to state a claim. However, Plaintiff could allege additional facts 2 and thus leave to amend is not futile. Rather than recommending dismissal of the action, the 3 undersigned will provide Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint to allege facts 4 supporting a cognizable cause of action. 5 II. AMENDING THE COMPLAINT 6 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, it must contain a short and plain statement of 7 Plaintiff’s claims. The allegations of the complaint must be set forth in sequentially numbered 8 paragraphs, with each paragraph number being one greater than the one before, each paragraph 9 having its own number, and no paragraph number being repeated anywhere in the complaint. 10 Each paragraph should be limited “to a single set of circumstances” where possible. Rule 10(b). 11 As noted above, forms are available to help plaintiffs organize their complaint in the proper way. 12 The amended complaint must not force the Court or the Defendants to guess at what is 13 being alleged against whom. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-80 (9th Cir. 1996) 14 (affirming dismissal of a complaint where the district court was “literally guessing as to what 15 facts support the legal claims being asserted against certain defendants”). The amended 16 complaint should contain specific allegations as to the actions of each named defendant rather 17 than making conclusory allegations that the defendants collectively violated the FCRA. 18 Also, the amended complaint must not refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff’s 19 amended complaint complete. An amended complaint must be complete in itself without 20 reference to any prior pleading. Local Rule 220. This is because, as a general rule, an amended 21 complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline 22 Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438, 456 n.4 (2009) (“[n]ormally, an amended complaint 23 supersedes the original complaint”) (citing 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & 24 Procedure § 1476, pp. 556-57 (2d ed. 1990)). Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an 25 original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently 26 alleged. 27 Plaintiff’s amended complaint must address the issues set forth herein. Plaintiff may not 28 merely allege violation of a statutory provision without alleging sufficient factual matter to state a 1 | claim to relief that is plausible on its face. 2 III. CONCLUSION 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. 5 2. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint 6 that addresses the defects set forth above. If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this 7 order, the undersigned may recommend that this action be dismissed. 8 3. Alternatively, if Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action, Plaintiff may file a notice 9 of voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil 10 Procedure. 11 SO ORDERED. 12 | DATED: November 6, 2025 mk 13 SEAN C. RIORDAN 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28