Haynie v. Camping World RV Sales LLC

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Howard Leon Haynie,
Plaintiff,
v.
Camping World RV Sales LLC,
Defendant.
No. CV-26-00011-TUC-JCH
ORDER
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (Doc. 2) and Motion to Allow Electronic Filing (Doc. 3). The Court will also
screen Plaintiff’s Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court will grant
Plaintiff’s Application (Doc. 2) and Motion (Doc. 3) and dismiss the Complaint.
I. 	Application for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2)
In Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, he states that he is unable
to pay the filing fees and costs because he is currently unemployed and homeless. He
records an average monthly income from self-employment of $350.00, $5.00 in a savings
account, $100.00 in assets, and $220.00 in monthly expenses. He also records three
children as dependents who rely on his income for support. The Court is persuaded that
Plaintiff cannot afford the costs associated with filing suit and will grant Plaintiff in forma
pauperis status.
. . . .
. . . .
Case 4:26-cv-00011-JCH Document 7 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 5

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
II. 	Motion to Allow Electronic Filing (Doc. 3)
Within Plaintiff’s “Motion to Allow Electronic Filing by a Party Appearing Without
an Attorney,” Plaintiff has included a declaration affirming that he is willing and able to
comply with the electronic filing requirements. (Doc. 3.) Accordingly, the Court will grant
Plaintiff’s Motion to Allow Electronic Filing. Plaintiff is reminded that pro se litigants
must generally follow the same court rules and procedures as represented litigants.
See Carter v. Comm’r, 784 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1986). As such, Plaintiff should
review the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Civil Procedure to
avoid impermissible findings.
III. 	Statutory Screening of Pro Se Complaint
A. 	Legal Standard
The Court must screen in forma pauperis complaints and under § 1915(e)(2) and
dismiss a case if the Court determines the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief.”
A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does
not 	require 	detailed 	factual 	allegations, 	“it 	demands 	more 	than 	an 	unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). Conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Bd. of
Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Instead, “a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
Iqbal, 566 at 678 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A
claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw
the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
Determining whether a claim is plausible is “a context-specific task that requires the
reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679.
Still, the Court must “construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d
338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). A pro se complaint “must be held to less stringent standards than
Case 4:26-cv-00011-JCH Document 7 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 5

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007) (per curiam)). If the Court determines a complaint could be cured by the allegation
of additional facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend that complaint
before dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127–29 (9th Cir. 2000)
(en banc).
B. 	The Complaint
Plaintiff asserts one claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C.
§§ 1681 et seq., against Defendant Camping World RV Sales, LLC. (Doc. 1 at 4.) The
Complaint alleges Defendant accessed Plaintiff’s Experian consumer credit report in
connection with a credit application for a vehicle and then “took adverse action or failed to
approve the credit application based in whole or in part on information contained in
Plaintiff’s consumer report.” (Id.) Plaintiff is requesting compensatory damages and, if
permitted, punitive damages and declaratory relief. (Id.)
The FCRA “was crafted to protect consumers from the transmission of inaccurate
information about them” in consumer reports. Robins v. Spokeo, Inc., 867 F.3d 1108, 1113
(9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Guimond v. Trans Union Credit Info. Co., 45 F.3d 1329, 1333 (9th
Cir. 1995)). “‘To achieve this end,’ [the] FCRA imposes on consumer-reporting agencies
‘a host of [procedural] requirements concerning the creation and use of consumer reports’
and . . . allows individuals to sue those which are non-compliant.” Id. at 1113–14 (quoting
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 334–35 (2016), as revised (May 24, 2016)). As
pertinent here, the FCRA permits a consumer reporting agency to furnish a credit report
relating to a consumer in connection with a credit transaction under certain circumstances.
See 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a)(3), (c). “The FCRA provides a private right of action against
those who violate its statutory requirements in procuring and using consumer reports.” Syed
v. M-I, LLC, 853 F.3d 492, 497 (9th Cir. 2017). The affected consumer is entitled to actual
damages, court fees, and costs for a negligent violation, § 1681o, in addition to statutory
damages ranging from $100 to $1,000 and punitive damages for a willful violation,
§ 1681o. See Syed, 853 F.3d at 497.
Case 4:26-cv-00011-JCH Document 7 Filed 01/12/26 Page 3 of 5

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant obtained his consumer report for any
prohibited purpose. Instead, he alleges that Defendant’s “adverse action” or failure to
“approve his credit application” violated the FRCA. The FRCA does not prohibit adverse
action under the circumstances here. See generally § 1681b. Rather, the FRCA places
notice requirements upon the person using the consumer’s credit report to perform an
adverse action. See § 1681m(a). Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant failed to comply
with these notice requirements. As such, the Complaint fails to state a claim under the
FRCA.
C. 	Leave to Amend
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss all counts and Defendants without
prejudice. Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a first amended complaint to cure the
deficiencies outlined above. The first amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in
its entirety, and no part of the original Complaint may be incorporated by reference. Any
cause of action raised in the original Complaint is waived if not alleged in the first amended
complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc).
Should Plaintiff choose to amend his Complaint, the Court cautions Plaintiff that
the PDF Complaint filed with the Court appears incomplete. It appears Plaintiff also
intended to assert a claim under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”), 15 U.S.C.
§§ 1691 et seq, and may have typed additional information in the “Basis for Jurisdiction”
and “Statement of Claim” sections. (Doc. 1 at 3–4.) However, the PDF form did not permit
additional space, and any extra sentences are cut off. Should he amend, Plaintiff should
attach additional pages to the end of the PDF packet for sections that do not provide
adequate space and clearly label the information on any attached pages.
III. 	Warnings
Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with
LRCiv. 83.3(d). Plaintiff must not include a motion for other relief with a notice of change
of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this action.
If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these
warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,
Case 4:26-cv-00011-JCH Document 7 Filed 01/12/26 Page 4 of 5

- 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure
to comply with any order of the Court).
IV. 	Order
IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (Doc. 2).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Allow Electronic
Filing (Doc. 3).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing without prejudice the Complaint
(Doc. 1). Plaintiff has 30 days from the date of filing of this Order to file a first amended
complaint. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within 30 days, the Clerk of Court
must enter a judgment of dismissal of this action, without prejudice and without further
notice to Plaintiff and deny any pending unrelated motions as moot.
Dated this 12th day of January, 2026.
Case 4:26-cv-00011-JCH Document 7 Filed 01/12/26 Page 5 of 5