United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
J. JONKER, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a civil action brought by a state prisoner under the federal
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et
seq. The Court has granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act,
Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), the Court is
required to dismiss any prisoner action brought under federal
law if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary
relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). The Court must read Plaintiff's
pro se complaint indulgently, see Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accept
Plaintiff's allegations as true, unless they are clearly
irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Applying these
standards, Plaintiff's action will be dismissed for
failure to state a claim.
Peter Joshua LaBreck presently is incarcerated at the St.
Clair County Jail. He sues Mid-Michigan Credit Bureau and its
unknown CEO or owner (Unknown Party).
allegations are extremely limited. He contends that
Mid-Michigan Credit Bureau, which appears to be a debt
collection agency, reported untrue information to consumer
credit reporting agencies, causing that information to appear
on Plaintiff's credit report. Specifically, he asserts
that Defendants Mid-Michigan Credit Bureau and its owner or
CEO reported an account with University Surgeons as
delinquent and in collections. Plaintiff contends that the
reported debt does not belong to him and that, as a result of
the erroneous report, he was unable to secure any type of
credit, which prevents him from pursuing his profession as a
real estate investor. Plaintiff broadly claims that
Defendants' actions violated the FCRA, though he does not
specify the provision under which he brings his claim.
relief, Plaintiff seeks $6, 504, 000.00 in damages.
Failure to state a claim
complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it
fails “‘to give the defendant fair notice of what
the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.'” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). While a complaint need not contain
detailed factual allegations, a Plaintiff's allegations
must include more than labels and conclusions.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“Threadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”). The
court must determine whether the complaint contains
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at
570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 679. Although the plausibility standard is not equivalent
to a “‘probability requirement, ' . . . it
asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has
acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “[W]here
the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more
than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has
alleged - but it has not ‘show[n]' - that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 679 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)); see also Hill
v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010) (holding
that the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard applies
to dismissals of prisoner cases on initial review under 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)).
FCRA regulates the field of consumer reporting and governs
the collection and use of consumer credit information. The
purpose of the Act is “to require that consumer
reporting agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting
the needs of commerce for consumer credit, personnel,
insurance, and other information in a manner which is fair
and equitable to the consumer.” 15 U.S.C. §
1681(b). The Act covers three main actors: (1) credit
reporting agencies; (2) users of consumer reports; and (3)
furnishers of information to credit reporting agencies.
Ruggiero v. Kavlich, 411 F.Supp.2d 734, 736 (N.D.
Ohio 2005). It appears from the allegations that Plaintiff
considers Defendants to be “furnishers of
information” within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. §
1681s-2(a). While § 1681s-2 does not define
“furnisher, ” courts have defined the term as
“any entitty which transmits information concerning a
particular debt owed by a particular customer to consumer
reporting agencies.” Carney v. Experion Information
Solutions, Inc., 57 F.Supp.2d 496, 501 (W.D. Tenn.
FCRA imposes two general duties on furnishers of information
to a credit reporting agency: (1) a duty to provide accurate
information, § 1681s-2(a); and (2) a duty to undertake
an investigation upon receipt of notice of dispute from a
consumer reporting agency, § 1681s-2(b). Plaintiff's
allegations appear to invoke only § 1681s-2(a).
exists no private cause of action for consumers against
furnishers of information for failure to comply with §
1681s-2(a). See Sanders v. Mountain America Fed. Credit
Union, 689 F.3d 1138, 1147 (10th Cir. 2012); Huertas
v. Galaxy Asset Mgmt., 641 F.3d 28, 34 (3d Cir. 2011);
Nelson v. Chase Manhatten Mortg. Corp., 282 F.3d
1057, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2002); Elsady v. Rapid Global
Business Solutions, Inc., No. 09-11659, 2010 WL 2740154,
at *5 (E.D. Mich. Jul.12, 2010); Ruggiero, 411
F.Supp.2d at 736; Carney, 57 F.Supp.2d at 502.
Enforcement of the duty to provide accurate information is
expressly limited by the statute to specific federal agencies
and officials. 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(d). Therefore,
Plaintiff may not sue Defendants for allegedly furnishing
conducted the review required by the Prison Litigation Reform
Act, the Court determines that Plaintiff's action will be
dismissed under 28 U.S.C. ...