(PS) Belvins v. Navy Federal Credit Union
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES BELVINS, JR., No. 2:23-cv-02674-KJM-CKD PS 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
13 v. 14 NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On November 23, 2023, plaintiff who is proceeding without counsel in this action, filed a 18 complaint and sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).1 (ECF No. 1.) On February 1, 19 2024, the undersigned granted plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP and, upon finding plaintiff had 20 failed to state a claim, dismissed plaintiff’s complaint and provided plaintiff further leave to 21 amend. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff timely filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) on February 28, 22 2024. (ECF No. 4.) However, because plaintiff has not cured the previously identified 23 deficiencies and the FAC does not otherwise state a claim for relief, the undersigned recommends 24 that plaintiff’s FAC be dismissed without further leave to amend. 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 1 Actions where a party proceeds without counsel are referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 1 I. Legal Standards 2 Under the IFP statute, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss any claims that are 3 “frivolous or malicious,” fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seek monetary 4 relief against an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Further, the federal court has an 5 independent duty to ensure it has subject matter jurisdiction in the case. See United Investors 6 Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). 7 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “naked 8 assertions,” “labels and conclusions,” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 9 action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). In other words, 10 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 11 statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, relief 12 cannot be granted for a claim that lacks facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim 13 has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 14 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 15 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, the 16 court must accept the well-pled factual allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 17 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Papasan v. 18 Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 283 (1986). 19 Pleadings by self-represented litigants are liberally construed. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 20 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 21 Unless it is clear that no amendment can cure the defects of a complaint, a self-represented 22 plaintiff proceeding IFP is ordinarily entitled to notice and an opportunity to amend before 23 dismissal. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 24 F.2d 1221, 1230 (9th Cir. 1984). Nevertheless, leave to amend need not be granted when further 25 amendment would be futile. See Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 26 1996). 27 II. Analysis 28 Plaintiff’s FAC names the Navy Federal Credit Union as a defendant. (ECF No. 4.) 1 Plaintiff wishes “to be extended [his] open ended credit in the amount of 35,000…” (Id. at 2.) 2 This court previously informed plaintiff of the relevant pleading standards and the elements of a 3 claim under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). (ECF No. 3.) Specifically, plaintiff was 4 informed that to state a claim under the ECOA, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) he is a member of 5 a protected class; (2) he applied for credit with defendants; (3) he qualified for credit; and (4) he 6 was denied credit despite being qualified. (Id. at 2, citing Harvey v. Bank of Am., N.A., 906 F. 7 Supp. 2d 982, 990-91 (N.D. Cal. 2012).) 8 Plaintiff has not alleged that he is a member of a protected class, that he qualified for 9 credit, or that he was denied credit despite being qualified. Plaintiff’s FAC contains messages 10 from the Navy Federal Credit Union indicating that his credit application was denied because 11 plaintiff did not qualify for approval based on a low credit score, thus belying the existence of an 12 ECOA claim. (ECF No. 4 at 7, “At this time your score does not qualify for approval.”) 13 Accordingly, plaintiff fails to plead the required elements of an ECOA claim and has not stated a 14 claim for relief. The undersigned finds that further amendment would be futile and recommends 15 dismissal without further leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 16 2000) (while the court’s approach to pro se litigants is to allow liberal amendment, the court need 17 not do so when it would be futile). 18 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 19 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that: 20 1. The action be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and 21 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to CLOSE this case. 22 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to 23 the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days after 24 being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 25 the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 26 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 27 //// 28 //// 1 || may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 2 | (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 | Dated: March 21, 2024 Cad □ ht fa he 4 CAROLYNK. DELANEY 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 || 21, Belv.02674 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
(PS) Belvins v. Navy Federal Credit Union ((PS) Belvins v. Navy Federal Credit Union) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.