Williams v. Equifax Credit Bureau

Background

Jacqueline Williams filed a civil action against Equifax Credit Bureau and other defendants, along with an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. Her complaint referred to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, contributory negligence, professional negligence, bank fraud, and mail fraud. She appeared to allege that credit-reporting agencies discriminated against her, failed to provide copies of her credit reports, and mishandled information concerning her credit. She sought substantial compensatory and punitive damages, other damages, costs, and attorney fees.

Fee application

The court ordered Williams to explain why her application to proceed without paying the filing fee should not be denied. The application did not provide the date of her last employment or her monthly gross and net wages. It also identified rent and Social Security payments without stating their amounts and listed income from a spouse’s salary even though Williams stated that she was not married. The court therefore could not determine whether she was eligible to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Screening of the complaint

Because Williams sought to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court found that the complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted, but allowed an opportunity to amend because it was not clear that the problems could not be corrected.

The court first found that Williams had not properly alleged federal subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal authority to hear the case. Her reference to the 1964 Civil Rights Act was not tied to specific allegations. The court also explained that federal criminal statutes generally do not provide private civil claims that an individual can pursue. Williams’s allegations about credit reports appeared possibly to raise claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, but the court found that she had not adequately alleged violations of that law. The court also noted that Williams alleged all three defendants were located in California, which did not establish diversity jurisdiction as pleaded.

The court separately found that the complaint did not satisfy Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It did not give a short and plain statement of the claims, identify each claim clearly, or connect particular facts to particular defendants. The amended complaint had to identify the specific law or right allegedly violated, state the facts supporting each claim, and explain why each defendant was being sued.

Order

The court ordered Williams to file both an amended fee application and a first amended complaint by August 27, 2020. The amended complaint had to replace the original complaint, include all facts, claims, and defendants she wished to pursue, and not rely on the original complaint by reference. The order stated that if Williams did not make the required filings, the court would recommend denying the fee application and dismissing the case without prejudice. The court did not enter that conditional dismissal in this order.