Earl Heller v. First Light Fed Credit Union, et al

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [15-51233 Affirmed] Judge: EHJ , Judge: JLW , Judge: EBC. Mandate pull date is 11/04/2016 [15-51233]

Case: 15-51233

Document: 00513718181

Page: 1

Date Filed: 10/14/2016

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-51233
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
October 14, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

EARL R. HELLER,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.

FIRST LIGHT FEDERAL CREDIT UNION; JEFF MORTENSON, VicePresident-Lending,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:15-CV-347
Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Earl R. Heller appeals the dismissal of his in forma pauperis complaint
as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Heller argues that First Light
Federal Credit Union (First Light) and Jeff Mortenson approved a fraudulent
vehicle loan in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681c-1. He further asserts that First
Light and Mortenson violated 12 C.F.R. § 614.4150 by not accurately

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*

Case: 15-51233

Document: 00513718181

Page: 2

Date Filed: 10/14/2016

No. 15-51233
considering Heller’s income-to-debt ratio when reviewing his loan application.
Finally, Heller complains that First Light and Mortenson approved the loan
application because they did not want to jeopardize their business relationship
with Casa Ford and argues that this relationship amounted to a conflict of
interest under 12 C.F.R. § 721.7.
The various provisions of § 1681c-1 require potential creditors faced with
a report on a consumer who has requested a fraud alert to take certain steps
before setting up a new credit plan or extension of credit in that consumer’s
name.

See § 1681c-1(h)(1)(B)(i)-(ii), (h)(2)(B).

The investigation by the

National Credit Union Administration established that First Light contacted
Heller to complete the fraud alert verification. Given that Heller’s claim under
§ 1681c-1 lacks an arguable basis in fact, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in dismissing it as frivolous. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25,
33 (1992); Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 733-34 (5th Cir. 1998).
Heller argues that First Light and Mortenson violated the provisions of
§ 614.4150, which outlines lending policies and loan underwriting standards.
However, because he did not raise this claim in the district court, we will not
consider it on appeal. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342
(5th Cir. 1999).
Finally, § 721.7 merely addresses possible conflicts of interests for credit
union officials and employees and does not establish a private cause of action.
See § 721.7. As such, Heller has not shown that his claim has an arguable
basis in the law and, thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
dismissing it as frivolous. See Black, 134 F.3d at 733-34; Siglar v. Hightower,
112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2