1 - OPINION & ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

NICHOLAS LAVERNE REMINGTON,

Plaintiff, No. 3:15-cv-02251-HZ 

v. OPINION & ORDER

EQUIFAX CONSUMER SERVICES, 

Defendant.

Nicholas L. Remington

13118920 

Two Rivers Correctional Institution 

82911 Beach Access Rd 

Umatilla, OR 97882-9419

Pro Se Plaintiff

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

On November 30, 2015, Plaintiff Nicholas L. Remington filed a complaint [1], and an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) [2]. Remington’s application to proceed IFP is 

Case 3:15-cv-02251-HZ Document 5 Filed 12/21/15 Page 1 of 5
2 - OPINION & ORDER

granted, but, as explained below, his complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim. He can, 

however, file an amended complaint should he so desire. The Court provides some additional 

instructions at the end of this Opinion & Order. 

STANDARDS

In connection with IFP actions such as this, district courts are obligated to dismiss sua 

sponte actions that are frivolous or malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Courts have a duty to liberally construe a pro se plaintiff’s

pleadings, but a court cannot supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled. 

See Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the claim and factual matters 

that, if accepted as true, are sufficient to state a facially plausible claim. FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a); 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–78 (2009) (citation omitted). A complaint states a plausible 

claim where the “plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When a 

court dismisses a complaint for failure to state a claim, the court should grant leave to amend 

“unless the court determines that the allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged 

pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency.” DeSoto v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 957 F.2d 

655, 658 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 

DISCUSSION

Remington captioned his complaint as a “Motion for Expungement Under Federal 

For[]bearance Act.” Remington claims that the Federal Forbearance Act “permits convicted 

felons the limited one-time opportunity to vacate and remove old existing and outstanding debt 

Case 3:15-cv-02251-HZ Document 5 Filed 12/21/15 Page 2 of 5
3 - OPINION & ORDER

for minorities while incarcerated.” Compl. at 1. (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.). Remington also 

seems to rely on 15 U.S.C. § 1681(4)(a) as a basis for his “expungement” claim. 

The Court could not find any federal statute called the “Federal Forbearance Act.” 

Additionally, while there is a lengthy statute located at 15 U.S.C. § 1681, there is no section 

located at 15 U.S.C. § 1681(4)(a). Each section of the statute at 15 U.S.C. § 1681 is further 

labeled with a lowercase letter. See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. § 1681a, 15 U.S.C. § 1681b, or 15 U.S.C. § 

1681c, and so on. The Court reviewed various subsections of 15 U.S.C. § 1681, and could not 

find a section which provides felons the right to vacate an outstanding debt as Remington claims.

The federal statute located at 15 U.S.C. § 1681 is commonly referred to as the “Fair 

Credit Reporting Act” or “FCRA.” Portions of Remington’s complaint could be construed as 

attempting to bring a claim under FCRA. For example, Remington asserts that the statutory 

sections he has cited provide that “[i]f the debt is not verified and investigated, after a thirty day 

period, . . . any and all debt will then be considered disputed and removed from the credit 

reports.” Compl. at 2. Remington then asks the Court to grant his motion and order “a rapid rescore, to update all listed debt named in this motion[,] to have all said debt named and listed 

removed from the credit reporting agencies within the next 30 days.” Compl. at 3.

Congress enacted FCRA “to ensure fair and accurate credit reporting, promote efficiency 

in the banking system, and protect consumer privacy.” Baldin v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 

3:12-CV-00648-AC, 2013 WL 6388499, at *6 (D. Or. Dec. 6, 2013) (quoting Safeco Ins. Co. of 

Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 52 (2007)). FCRA requires consumer reporting agencies like 

Defendant Equifax to “adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for 

consumer credit . . . .” 15 U.S.C. § 1681(b); see also Bradshaw v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, 

LP, 816 F. Supp. 2d 1066, 1071 (D. Or. 2011) (citations omitted). To bring a claim that a 

Case 3:15-cv-02251-HZ Document 5 Filed 12/21/15 Page 3 of 5
4 - OPINION & ORDER

consumer reporting agency (“CRA”) has violated § 1681e(b), a consumer must present evidence 

tending to show that a CRA prepared a report containing inaccurate information. Bradshaw, 816 

F. Supp. 2d at 1071 (citing Guimond v. Trans Union Credit Info. Co., 45 F.3d 1329, 1333 (9th 

Cir. 1995)).

FCRA also imposes some duties on entities which provide credit information to CRAs, 

called “furnishers.” See Baldin, 2013 WL 6388499, at *6. These obligations are triggered upon 

notice of dispute—that is, when a person or entity who furnished information to a CRA receives 

notice from the CRA that the consumer disputes the information. Id. If a furnisher receives 

notice of a dispute from a CRA, FCRA requires the furnishers to, among others, investigate the 

disputed item and remove the item from the report if the investigation reveals the item is 

inaccurate or incomplete. Id. (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681s–2(b)(1)). A consumer can bring a claim 

against a furnisher for violating its duties under FCRA by showing: (1) the furnisher of 

information received notice of the dispute from a credit reporting agency; (2) it failed to perform 

a reasonable investigation upon receiving such notice; (3) the failure to investigate was willful or 

negligent; and (4) plaintiff was harmed. Id. at *7 (citing Saucedo v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 

3:11–cv–00813–MO, 2011 WL 6014008, at *3 (D. Or. Dec. 1, 2011)). “[A] plaintiff who 

identifies the credit reporting at issue, alleges it was false, includes allegations as to why it was 

false, alleges she tried to explain why it was false but her attempts were ignored, and alleges she 

was harmed in a particular way, satisfies the pleading requirements for such a claim.” Id. (citing 

Saucedo, 2011 WL 6014008 at *4). 

Remington’s complaint does not contain any factual allegations that establish the 

elements of a FCRA claim against a CRA or a furnisher. He does not allege, for example, that 

his credit report is inaccurate or that he disputed any item on his report with Defendant Equifax 

Case 3:15-cv-02251-HZ Document 5 Filed 12/21/15 Page 4 of 5
5 - OPINION & ORDER

or any other credit reporting agency. Furthermore, although Remington asks the Court to order 

Equifax to “update all listed debt named in this motion,” Remington’s motion does not list any 

such debt. Without more specific factual allegations, Remington’s complaint is dismissed for 

failure to state a claim. 

Remington can submit a new, amended complaint and attempt to state a valid claim. 

Should he desire to do so, he should carefully direct the Court to what he believes is the Federal 

Forbearance Act with an accurate citation. If he intends to bring a claim under FCRA, he should 

include factual allegations that satisfy one of the FCRA claims the Court laid out above. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, Remington’s application to proceed in forma pauperis [2] is 

granted and his IFP status is confirmed. His complaint [1] is dismissed sua sponte without 

prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim. Remington may file an amended complaint, 

consistent with this Opinion & Order, within 30 days of the date below. The Clerk’s Office is 

directed to withhold issuance of any summons until further order of the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this day of __________________, 2015.

 

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02251-HZ Document 5 Filed 12/21/15 Page 5 of 5