1

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 John W. Conn, Case No. 2:22-cv-00498-GMN-BNW 6 Plaintiff, 7 Screening Order v. 8 Equifax Credit Reporting, 9 Defendant. 10 11 12 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se under

and has requested authority to 13 proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also submitted a complaint. ECF No. 1-2. 14 I. In forma pauperis Application 15 Plaintiff has filed the application required by

(a). ECF No. 1. Plaintiff 16 has shown an inability to prepay fees and costs or to give security for them. Accordingly, the 17 Court grants his request to proceed in forma pauperis. 18 The Court will now review Plaintiff’s complaint. ECF No. 1-2. 19 II. Screening Standard 20 Upon granting an application to proceed in forma pauperis, courts additionally screen the 21 complaint under § 1915(e). Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the action is 22 legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 23 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

(e)(2). When 24 a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915, the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the 25 complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the 26 complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70

(9th Cir. 1995). 1 Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for dismissal of a 2 complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Review under Rule 3 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am.,

719, 723 (9th Cir. 2000). A properly pled complaint must provide a short and plain statement of 5 the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. 6 v. Twombly,

(2007). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual 7 allegations, it demands “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the 8 elements of a cause of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). The court must accept 9 as true all well-pled factual allegations contained in the complaint, but the same requirement does 10 not apply to legal conclusions. Iqbal,

. Mere recitals of the elements of a cause of 11 action, supported only by conclusory allegations, do not suffice.

. Secondly, where the 12 claims in the complaint have not crossed the line from conceivable to plausible, the complaint 13 should be dismissed. Twombly,

. Allegations of a pro se complaint are held to less 14 stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Hebbe v. Pliler,

, 342 15 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that liberal construction of pro se pleadings is required after 16 Twombly and Iqbal). 17 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess only that power authorized by 18 the Constitution and statute. See Rasul v. Bush,

(2004). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 19 § 1331, federal courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the 20 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Cases “arise under” federal law either when 21 federal law creates the cause of action or where the vindication of a right under state law 22 necessarily turns on the construction of federal law. Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277

(9th Cir. 2002). Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists is based on the 24 “well-pleaded complaint rule,” which provides that “federal jurisdiction exists only when a 25 federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” 26 Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams,

(1987). 27 // 1 III. Screening the Complaint 2 Here, it appears Plaintiff is attempting to allege a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting 3 Act. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Equifax “entered incorrectly credit status with City Credit 4 Union in a credit report dated June 20, 2020” when these matters were in fact discharged pursuant 5 to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. He also alleges that he told Equifax it was erroneous to report that his 6 bankruptcy in Dallas was discharged when in fact it was dismissed without prejudice. Lastly, he 7 alleges that the bankruptcy adjudicated in Las Vegas in 2018 is not reported. 8 Under Section 1681i of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 9 if the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer’s file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by 10 the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly, or 11 indirectly through a reseller, of such a dispute, the agency shall, free of charge, conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine 12 whether the disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from 13 the file in accordance with paragraph (5), before the end of the 30- day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the 14 notice of the dispute from the consumer or reseller. 15 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A). 16 In addition to the required reinvestigation, a consumer reporting agency (“CRA”) has a 17 duty to promptly notify the entity or individual who provided the information that such 18 information has been disputed before the expiration of the 5-business-day period that begins on 19 the date the CRA received notice of the dispute. 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(2)(A). A CRA may 20 terminate a reinvestigation if it reasonably determines that the dispute is frivolous or irrelevant. 21 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(3)(A). However, if the reinvestigation reveals that the disputed information 22 is in fact inaccurate, incomplete, or cannot be verified, the CRA shall promptly delete that item of 23 information from the file and promptly notify the furnisher of that information. 15 U.S.C. 24 § 1681i(a)(5)(A)(i)-(ii). The Ninth Circuit has held “that a plaintiff filing suit under [§] 1681i 25 must make a ‘prima facie showing of inaccurate reporting.’” Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., 26 LLC,

(9th Cir. 2010). 27 ] As stated previously, it appears Plaintiff is attempting to bring a claim under the FCRA 2 || against Equifax Credit Reporting. The Court liberally construes Plaintiff as asserting violations of 3 || 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a). 4 First, Plaintiff does not assert that he contacted the Defendant as to all matters of which he 5 || complains. That is, he only asserts that he contacted Equifax to let them know about the incorrect 6 || reporting regarding the Dallas bankruptcy. He does not assert that he contacted them regarding 7 || City Credit Union or the Las Vegas bankruptcy. In addition, Plaintiff does not assert whether an 8 || investigation took (or did not take) place and what the result was. As pled, Plaintiff fails to make 9 || aprima facie showing of inaccurate reporting under

(a)(5)(A)(i)-(i1). As a 10 || result, the Court will dismiss the claim against Equifax without prejudice. 11 |] IV. Conclusion 12 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma 13 || pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without 15 || prejudice. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to file □□□□□□□□□□ 17 || complaint (ECF No. 1-2). 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until September 23, 2022 to file an 19 || amended complaint to the extent he believes he can correct the noted deficiencies. If Plaintiff 20 || chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff is informed that the Court cannot refer to a prior 21 || pleading (i.e., the original complaint) or prior documents to make the amended complaint 22 || complete. 23 24 DATED: August 22, 2022. 35 Kx pr La WER □ BRENDA WEKSLER 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28