THOMAS v. EXPERIAN
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Christopher R. Cooper on 1/19/2023. (zmrl)
Case 1:23-cv-00004-UNA Document 3 Filed 01/19/23 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JOHN P. THOMAS,
Civil Action No. 23-0004 (UNA)
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).
Case 1:23-cv-00004-UNA Document 3 Filed 01/19/23 Page 2 of 2
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
CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?