United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
John Corbett O'Meara, United States District Judge.
This matter came before the court on defendant Experian Information Solution’s April 28, 2015 Motion for More Definite Statement. No response was filed, and no oral argument was heard.
Plaintiff Greear’s pro se complaint, in its entirety, reads as follows: “Defendant has posted inaccurate items on my credit report and refuses to remove/correct them. I am suing for the amount of $3, 000 per regulations of the FCRA.”
Complaints drafted by pro se litigants are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys. They will be liberally construed by courts when determining whether they fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, a court need not formulate allegations or create a cause of action for a plaintiff. Barnett v. Hargett, (10th Cir. 1999).
Plaintiff’s complaint in this matter fails to provide any factual content regarding his alleged claim. He has failed to identify what information is inaccurate, why he contends Defendant should have removed or corrected it, what sections of the Fair Credit Reporting Act he contends Defendant has violated, or when the alleged violations took place. In order for Defendant to be able to defend the claims against it, it must know what is being alleged.
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant Experian Information Solutions’ April 28, 2015 Motion for ...