Williams v. Bank of America

E.D. Arkansas

Williams v. Bank of America

DecidedFebruary 6, 2025

Docket4:24-cv-00721

StatusUnknown

This text of Williams v. Bank of America (Williams v. Bank of America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williams v. Bank of America, (E.D. Ark. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

IVORY WILLIAMS PLAINTIFF

V. Case No. 4:24-CV-00721-JM

BANK OF AMERICA and ALASTAIR BORTHWICK DEFENDANTS

ORDER

On August 28, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff Ivory Williams’s petition to proceed in forma pauperis and screened the Complaint. (Doc. 3). Noting that the allegations were insufficiently pleaded, the Court gave Williams an opportunity to amend the complaint. Williams timely filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. 4), which now must be screened. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). “A pro se plaintiff must set forth enough factual allegations to ‘nudge [] their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible,’ or ‘their complaint must be dismissed’ for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 569-70 (2007); see also Aschroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”). While pro se complaints must be reviewed liberally, Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004), the complaint must allege specific facts sufficient to state a claim. See Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985). Williams sues the Bank of America and its Chief Financial Officer Alastair Borthwick alleging they unlawfully denied him a car loan. (Doc. 4). Specifically, Williams says that, on November 17, 2023, his request to finance a $128,000 to purchase a car was wrongly denied in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act within the Consumer Protection Act. (/d. at 7). He believes Defendants unlawfully withheld credit. Williams’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because it is conclusorily pleaded. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The documents Williams attaches to his complaint do not demonstrate that any right has been violated. The purpose of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act is to ensure that consumers are not denied credit because of their race, color, religion, national origin, sex or marital status, or age. Bayard v. Behlmann Automotive Services, Inc., 292 F.Supp.2d 1181, 1185 (E.D. Missouri 2003); 15 U.S.C. § 1691(a)(1). Williams has not asserted he was denied an extension of credit for any of these reasons. Instead, he simply states, “I have a right to credit” without further explanation. Accordingly, the Complaint and Amended Complaint are dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of February, 2025.

on eS ieee

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

IVORY WILLIAMS PLAINTIFF

V. Case No. 4:24-CV-00721-JM

BANK OF AMERICA and ALASTAIR BORTHWICK DEFENDANTS

ORDER

On August 28, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff Ivory Williams’s petition to proceed in forma pauperis and screened the Complaint. (Doc. 3). Noting that the allegations were insufficiently pleaded, the Court gave Williams an opportunity to amend the complaint. Williams timely filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. 4), which now must be screened. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). “A pro se plaintiff must set forth enough factual allegations to ‘nudge [] their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible,’ or ‘their complaint must be dismissed’ for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 569-70 (2007); see also Aschroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”). While pro se complaints must be reviewed liberally, Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004), the complaint must allege specific facts sufficient to state a claim. See Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985). Williams sues the Bank of America and its Chief Financial Officer Alastair Borthwick alleging they unlawfully denied him a car loan. (Doc. 4). Specifically, Williams says that, on November 17, 2023, his request to finance a $128,000 to purchase a car was wrongly denied in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act within the Consumer Protection Act. (/d. at 7). He believes Defendants unlawfully withheld credit. Williams’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because it is conclusorily pleaded. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The documents Williams attaches to his complaint do not demonstrate that any right has been violated. The purpose of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act is to ensure that consumers are not denied credit because of their race, color, religion, national origin, sex or marital status, or age. Bayard v. Behlmann Automotive Services, Inc., 292 F.Supp.2d 1181, 1185 (E.D. Missouri 2003); 15 U.S.C. § 1691(a)(1). Williams has not asserted he was denied an extension of credit for any of these reasons. Instead, he simply states, “I have a right to credit” without further explanation. Accordingly, the Complaint and Amended Complaint are dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of February, 2025.

on eS ieee

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Williams v. Bank of America, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-bank-of-america-ared-2025.

Opinion

V. Case No. 4:24-CV-00721-JM

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack