Source: http://nv.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20140902_0001510.DNV.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 03:44:36+00:00

Document:
FindACase | Davis v. Transunion Corp.
JENNIFER A. DORSEY, District Judge.
Pro se plaintiff James Anthony Davis is an inmate at Nevada's High Desert State Prison. He brings this civil rights action under § 1983, alleging that TransUnion, LLC failed to correct "major mistakes" on his credit report despite repeated notice, resulting in wrongheaded collections efforts, damage to Davis's reputation, breach of his privacy, and his inability to obtain credit. Doc. 1 at 46. TransUnion timely removed this action to federal court and immediately sought dismissal of Davis's allegations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that TransUnion is not a state actor and cannot be held liable under § 1983. Doc. 5. I agree that Davis's allegations reflect a suit between private parties and § 1983, which authorizes suits against persons acting under color of state law, does not provide a legal right to relief against TransUnion. Thus, I grant TransUnion's motion to dismiss but give Davis one opportunity to amend his complaint to state a cognizable claim for relief.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) supplies the standard for pleadings in a federal cause of action and states, "[a] pleading that states a claim for relief must contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction....; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought." A district court may dismiss a complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." "[A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds' of his entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." The Court is also "not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." To state a "plausible" claim for relief, the plaintiff must "plead factual content that allows the court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." This requires a plaintiff to state "enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence" of the allegations charged.
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law...." To hold a party liable under § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) that the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. Section 1983 relief may only be obtained against a non-State actor when the nominally private actor is "controlled by an agency of the State, when it has been delegated a public function by the State, when it is entwined with governmental policies, or when the government is entwined in its management or control."
Davis's complaint never alleges that TransUnion is a state actor, and neither his complaint nor response to the motion to dismiss provides any basis for § 1983 relief against TransUnion. See Docs. 1, 7. His complaint is entirely devoid of any such allegations; his response argues that TransUnion "acted under color of state law" when it "called [Davis's] mother's house every day harassing her and threatening her for [him] to pay, " and that they deprived Davis of privileges and immunities guaranteed under the United States Constitution by failing to correct errors in his credit score, which resulted in his loss of credit. Doc. 7 at 2-3. Put simply, what Davis describes in his allegations and argument is a private dispute between private parties; these allegations do not state a plausible claim for relief under § 1983. TransUnion's motion to dismiss is granted.
1. If Davis chooses to file an amended complaint, it must comply with all rules of this court, which include the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (available on the U.S. Courts website at http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/rules/civil-procedure.pdf) and the Local Rules of Practice for the District of Nevada (available on this court's website at http://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/). A plaintiff is not relieved of the obligation to follow all rules of this court simply because he has chosen to represent himself.
a. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b) requires a party to "state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs." (Much like the form of pages 5-6 of this order).

References: v. 
 § 1983
 § 1983
 § 1983
 § 1983
 § 1983
 § 1983
 § 1983