1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 Taylor Hatty, Case No. 2:25-cv-00699-APG-BNW

5 Plaintiff, Order 6 v.

7 Equifax Information Services LLC, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and has requested authority to proceed in forma pauperis. 11 ECF No. 1. Plaintiff has shown an inability to prepay fees and costs or to give security for them. 12 Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 13 § 1915(a). The Court will now review Plaintiff’s complaint. 14 I. Screening the complaint. 15 Upon granting an application to proceed in forma pauperis, courts additionally screen the 16 complaint under § 1915(e). Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the action is 17 legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 18 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

(e)(2). When 19 a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915, the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the 20 complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the 21 complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70

, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 23 Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for dismissal of a 24 complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Review under Rule 25 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 27 the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. 1 v. Twombly,

(2007). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual 2 allegations, it demands “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the 3 elements of a cause of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). The court must accept 4 as true all well-pled factual allegations contained in the complaint, but the same requirement does 5 not apply to legal conclusions. Iqbal,

. Mere recitals of the elements of a cause of 6 action, supported only by conclusory allegations, do not suffice.

. Secondly, where the 7 claims in the complaint have not crossed the line from conceivable to plausible, the complaint 8 should be dismissed. Twombly,

. Allegations of a pro se complaint are held to less 9 stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Hebbe v. Pliler,

, 342 10 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that liberal construction of pro se pleadings is required after 11 Twombly and Iqbal). 12 A. Complaint 13 Plaintiff alleges that on June 11, 2024, he wrote to Equifax Information Services and 14 Equifax Information Solutions to dispute inaccuracies in several accounts (listed in his complaint) 15 that appeared in his credit report. He alleges that neither Experian nor Equifax conducted a 16 reasonable investigation based on his dispute. He alleges he has suffered emotional distress, loss 17 of credit opportunities, and increased credit costs. He demands monetary damages, attorney fees 18 and costs, and the deletion of the disputed items from each report. 19 B. Analysis 20 Under Section 1681i of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 21 if the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer’s file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by 22 the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly, or 23 indirectly through a reseller, of such a dispute, the agency shall, free of charge, conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine 24 whether the disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from 25 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 26 notice of the dispute from the consumer or reseller. 27 15 U.S.C.A. § 1681i(a)(1)(A). 1 Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged facts to support a claim under the FCRA. 2 || ID. Conclusion 3 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF NO. 1) is 4 || GRANTED. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Fair Credit Reporting Act claims will 6 || proceed against Defendants Equifax Information Services LLC and Experian Information 7 || Solutions Inc. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to issue 9 || summonses to Defendants: (1) Equifax Information Services LLC , LLC; and (2) Experian 10 || Information Solutions, LLC. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to file Plaintiffs 12 || complaint (ECF No. 1-1) on the docket. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have until July 31, 2025 to serve the 14 || Defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that from this point forward, Plaintiff shall serve upon 16 || Defendants, or, if appearance has been entered by counsel, upon the attorney(s), a copy of every 17 || pleading, motion, or other document submitted for consideration by the Court. Plaintiff shall 18 || include with the original papers submitted for filing a certificate stating the date that a true and 19 || correct copy of the document was mailed to Defendants or counsel for Defendants. The Court 20 || may disregard any paper received by a District Judge or Magistrate Judge that has not been filed 21 || with the Clerk, and any paper received by a District Judge, Magistrate Judge, or the Clerk that 22 || fails to include a certificate of service. 23 24 25 DATED: May 1, 2025 26 Kx gn la we batn BRENDA WEKSLER 27 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28