Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
261157np-pdf•Frank Nellom v. Police
261157np-pdfCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit22.04.2026
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 26-1157
__________
FRANK NELLOM,
Appellant
v.
POLICE AND FIRE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION; CHAIRMAN ANTHONY
LAROSA; VICE CHAIRMAN JAMES CUNNINGHAM; TIMOTHY J. HAGGERTY;
JOHN LAROSA, President and chief operating officer; JAMES DUKE, President and
chief retail officer; LISA GIRDHARRY; KELLY ANN MORTON; KEVIN M. GRECO,
Vice President consumer loan mgr; STEVEN J. MOSER, Senior underwriter; STEVE
BERNHARDT, SR., Consumer loan underwriter
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. E.D. Pa. Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-06386)
District Judge: Honorable Joshua D. Wolson
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 13, 2026
Before: MATEY, MONTGOMERY-REEVES, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed April 22, 2026)
___________
OPINION*
___________
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
PER CURIAM
Frank Nellom appeals pro se the District Court’s order dismissing his amended
complaint. We will affirm.
Nellom sued the Police and Fire Federal Credit Union and a number of its
employees and/or associates, alleging he was unlawfully denied credit in violation of the
Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq., and the Pennsylvania
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“UTPCPL”), 73 Pa. Stat. and
Cons. Stat. § 201-1 et seq. The District Court granted Nellom leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, screened his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and dismissed it
without prejudice for failure to state a claim. In its memorandum opinion, the District
Court provided the elements of both ECOA and UTPCPL claims to afford Nellom the
opportunity to sufficiently plead his claims in an amended complaint. Even with this
guidance, Nellom’s amended complaint did not provide sufficient facts to support his
claims. Instead, Nellom merely alleged that Defendants approved him for a secured
credit card with a $500 credit limit at 18% interest, and that advertising credit “to people
to make them pay for credit” was deceptive and constituted unfair methods of
competition. Considering these vague allegations, the District Court dismissed Nellom’s
-- 2 of 3 --
3
amended complaint with prejudice, concluding that further amendment would be futile.
Nellom timely appealed.1
On appeal Nellom raises one issue only, asserting that the District Court erred in
finding that the ECOA does not protect him “against paying for credit.” Nellom does not
explain how the District Court erred, however, and we conclude that it did not. To state
an ECOA claim, Nellom must allege that he (1) belongs to a protected class; (2) applied
for credit; (3) was qualified to receive credit; and (4) was nonetheless denied. See
Anderson v. Wachovia Mortg. Corp., 621 F.3d 261, 268 n.5 (3d Cir. 2010). As the
District Court explained, Nellom has not made allegations that meet the standard; at most
he merely alleges that he applied for credit.
Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.2
1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over
the District Court’s sua sponte dismissal of Nellom’s amended complaint. See Dooley v.
Wetzel, 957 F.3d 366, 373 (3d Cir. 2020). Although pro se pleadings must be held to
“less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), “pro se litigants still must allege sufficient facts in their
complaints to support a claim.” Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d
Cir. 2013).
2 We will not consider issues related to Nellom’s UTPCPL claims because he does not
raise them in his opening brief. See M.S. ex rel. Hall v. Susquehanna Twp. Sch. Dist.,
969 F.3d 120, 124 n.2 (3d Cir. 2020) (explaining that parties forfeit any argument that
they do not raise in their opening brief).
-- 3 of 3 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.