United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
before the Court are three separate Complaints and Motions
for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis filed by
Plaintiff Monique Andrea Fredericks, all of which allege
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. §§1681 et seq.
See Fredericks v. TransUnion LLC, Civ. A. No. 18-1930
(E.D. Pa. filed May 7, 2017); Fredericks v. Equifax,
Civ. A. No. 18-1931 (E.D. Pa. filed May 8, 2018);
Fredericks v. Experian, Civ. A. No. 18-1932 (E.D.
Pa. filed May 7, 2018). For the following reasons, the Court
will grant Fredericks leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and will dismiss the Complaints with leave to
Complaints, Fredericks alleges that TransUnion LLC, Equifax,
and Experian have violated her rights under the FCRA by
refusing to honor her requests to "delete unverified
accounts in [her] name." Fredericks contends that the
three credit reporting agencies have ignored her letters
disputing these accounts. She claims that they have caused
"willful injury as well as defamation against [her]
causing damage to [her] credit and credit score." As
relief, Fredericks requests $250, 000.00 from each credit
reporting agency as well as the "maximum for defamation
and violation of FCRA."
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Court will grant Fredericks leave to proceed in forma
pauperis because it appears she is unable to pay the
fees to commence these suits. Accordingly, her Complaints are
subject to 28 U.S.C. § l9l5(e)(2)(B)(ii), which requires
the Court to dismiss the Complaints if they fail to state a
claim. Whether a complaint fails to state a claim under
§ l9l5(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard
applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), see Tourscher v. McCullough, 184
F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999), which requires the Court to
determine whether the complaint contains "sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted).
"[M]ere conclusory statements do not suffice."
Id. As Fredericks is proceeding pro se, the
Court construes her allegations liberally. Higgs v.
Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011).
Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a
complaint to contain "a short a plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." A
district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint
that does not comply with Rule 8 if "the complaint is so
confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that
its true substance, if any, is well disguised."
Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 1995)
(quotations omitted). This Court has noted that Rule 8
"requires that pleadings provide enough information to
put a defendant on sufficient notice to prepare their defense
and also ensure that the Court is sufficiently informed to
determine the issue." Fabian v. St. Mary's Med.
Ctr., No. Civ. A. 16-4741, 2017 WL 3494219, at *3 (E.D.
Pa. Aug. 11, 2017) (quotations omitted).
FCRA was enacted "to ensure fair and accurate credit
reporting, promote efficiency in the banking system, and
protect consumer privacy." Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v.
Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 52 (2007); see also SimmsParris
v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 652 F.3d 355, 357 (3d Cir.
2011) (noting that the FCRA is intended "to protect
consumers from the transmission of inaccurate information
about them, and to establish credit reporting practices that
utilize accurate, relevant and current information in a
confidential and responsible manner") (quoting
Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC, 617 F.3d 688, 706 (3d
appears to take issue with the accuracy of her credit reports
as prepared by TransUnion LLC, Equifax, and Experian. Under
the FCRA, "[w]henever a consumer reporting agency
prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable
procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the
information concerning the individual about whom the report
relates." 15 U.S.C. § l68le(b). In order to state a
claim for negligent noncompliance with § 1681 e(b), a
plaintiff must allege that
(1) inaccurate information was included in a consumer's
credit report; (2) the inaccuracy was due to defendant's
failure to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum
possible accuracy; (3) the consumer suffered injury; and (4)
the consumer's injury was caused by the inclusion of the
Cortez, 617 F.3d at 708 (quoting Philbin v.
Trans Union Corp., 101 F.3d 957, 963 (3d Cir.1996)). To
state a claim for willful noncompliance, a plaintiff must
allege that the defendant "knowingly and intentionally
committed an act in conscious disregard for the rights of
others, but need not show malice or evil motive."
Cushman v. Trans Union Corp., 115 F.3d 220, 226 (3d
Cir. 1997) (quoting Philbin, 101 F.3d at 970).
Complaints contain hardly more than a "[t]hreadbare
recital of the elements of a cause of action" for
noncompliance with the FCRA. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Fredericks has failed to set forth facts regarding which
accounts she believes should have been removed from her
credit report. Instead, she simply relies on insufficient
conclusory allegations. As pled, the Complaints do not
"provide enough information to put [Defendants] on
sufficient notice to prepare their defense and also ensure
that the Court is sufficiently informed to determine the
issue." Fabian, 2017 WL 3494219, at *3
(quotations omitted). Accordingly, the Complaints fail to
state a claim for relief at this time.