Court Opinion

ID: 9364609
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-19 19:00:50.9263+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:39.318578
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JOHN P. THOMAS,                               )
                                              )
               Plaintiff,                     )
                                              )
       v.                                     )       Civil Action No. 23-0004 (UNA)
                                              )
EXPERIAN,                                     )
                                              )
                Defendant.                    )

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION

       This matter, filed pro se, is before the Court on consideration of plaintiff’s application to

proceed in forma pauperis and pro se complaint. The application will be granted, and for the

reasons discussed below, the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.

       A pro se litigant’s pleadings are held to less stringent standards than would be applied to

formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even pro

se litigants, however, must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch,

656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires

that a complaint contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the Court’s

jurisdiction depends, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled

to relief, and a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

Further, a complaint must “contain 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) (quoting Bell

Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570)). A claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff

pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is

liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

                                                  1
       As drafted, plaintiff’s complaint runs afoul of Rule 8. First, the identity of the defendant

is unclear: in the caption, the defendant is Experian, and in the body of the complaint the

defendant is Equifax. See Compl. at 1. Second, only in the vaguest terms does plaintiff allege

“violations of the United States Code 1681b(2),” Compl. at 1, which presumably is a reference to

the Fair Credit Reporting Act. To allege that a defendant “furnish[ed] 31 alleged accounts on

[his] consumer report without . . . written instructions,” Compl. at 1 (emphasis removed), fails to

put the proper defendant on notice of when and how it ran afoul of the Fair Credit Reporting Act

or how defendant’s alleged violations of the Act harmed plaintiff. An Order is issued separately.

DATE: January 19, 2023                               /s/
                                                     CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
                                                     United States District Judge

                                                 2