Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 10, 2022

Lewis v. Old Navy

Judge
Nelson Roman
Docket
7:21-cv-09131
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
Civil ProcedurePro SeConsumer Credit
In one sentence

In Lewis v. Old Navy, Judge Roman ordered service on Old Navy and Synchrony Bank, dismissed “Dicks” without prejudice, and denied Lewis’s appeal-fee waiver application.

Who this affects

Regina Lewis’s claims against “Dicks” were dismissed without prejudice, while Old Navy and Synchrony Bank were ordered to be served and remained named defendants in the action. The order also denied Lewis’s application to appeal without paying filing fees.

What happened

In Lewis v. Old Navy, Regina Lewis, representing herself, claimed that the defendants violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act. She had permission to proceed without paying filing fees.

The court found that Lewis alleged no facts connecting “Dicks” to the claimed violations, but it directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Old Navy and Synchrony Bank. The court extended the service deadline until 90 days after summonses are issued.

Judge Roman dismissed Lewis’s claims against “Dicks” without prejudice and denied her application to appeal without paying filing fees because no appeal had been filed. The court did not decide whether Old Navy or Synchrony Bank violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Lewis v. Old Navy · No. 7:21-cv-09131
Judge
Nelson Roman
Date
Mar. 10, 2022

Background

Regina Lewis, proceeding without a lawyer, brought an action alleging that Old Navy, Synchrony Bank, and “Dicks” violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a federal law governing consumer credit reporting. The court had previously allowed Lewis to proceed without paying filing fees.

Screening standard

Because Lewis was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court was required to screen the amended complaint. It had to dismiss claims that were frivolous or malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or were outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that self-represented filings are read liberally, but they still must provide enough factual detail to make liability plausible.

Service on Old Navy and Synchrony Bank

The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and prepare the required service forms for Old Navy and Synchrony Bank. The U.S. Marshals Service was instructed to serve those defendants because Lewis was permitted to proceed without paying filing fees. The court extended the service deadline until 90 days after the summonses are issued. It also stated that Lewis must notify the court in writing if her address changes.

Dismissal of “Dicks”

Lewis named “Dicks” in the amended complaint’s caption but alleged no facts about that defendant. The court therefore found no factual basis suggesting that “Dicks” was legally responsible for the alleged Fair Credit Reporting Act violations or resulting injuries. The court dismissed Lewis’s claims against “Dicks” without prejudice, allowing Lewis to request permission to file a second amended complaint stating viable claims against that defendant.

Application to appeal without paying filing fees

Lewis attached an application to appeal without paying filing fees. The court denied that application as unnecessary because the case was proceeding on the amended complaint and Lewis had not filed a notice of appeal. The court also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.

Disposition

The court ordered service on Old Navy and Synchrony Bank, dismissed without prejudice Lewis’s claims against “Dicks,” and denied Lewis’s application to appeal without paying filing fees. This order did not decide the underlying question whether any defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.