Haynie v. TransUnion 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.
TransUnion LLC,
Defendant.
No. CV-25-00668-TUC-JCH
ORDER
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Howard Leon Haynie’s Complaint alleging
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) (Doc. 1). Plaintiff also filed a Renewed
Application to Proceed In District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“Renewed
Application”) (Doc. 9). The Court will grant the Renewed Application and order Defendant
TransUnion LLC to answer Counts One, Two, Three, Six, and Seven of Plaintiff’s
Complaint.
I. Renewed Application to Proceed In District Court Without Prepaying Fees and
Costs
Plaintiff filed his first Application to Proceed In District Court Without Prepaying
Fees or Costs (Doc. 2) at the same time he filed his Complaint. The Court found the
numbers contained in the first Application were inaccurate, and the information was
inconsistent with the information contained in his applications in other cases. See Doc. 8.
The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to either file a renewed application or pay the filing and
administrative fees. Id.
///
Case 4:25-cv-00668-JCH Document 10 Filed 02/25/26 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
Plaintiff filed his Renewed Application on February 21, 2026. Doc. 9. Though there
are still some inconsistencies (e.g., he now lists no expenses other than car insurance and
maintenance to others), the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff, who has consistently stated he
is unemployed and homeless, has insufficient funds to pay the filing fee. Good cause
appearing, the Court will grant the Renewed Application.
II. Statutory Screening of In Forma Pauperis Complaints
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), in a case in which a plaintiff has been granted in
forma pauperis status, the Court must screen the Complaint and dismiss the case “if the
court determines that . . . (B) 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). “[A] complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (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. In determining whether a complaint has stated a claim, a
“complaint [filed by a pro se litigant] ‘must be held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)).
III. Analysis
Plaintiff brings seven counts for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., against Defendant. See Doc. 1 (bringing counts under
§§ 1681e(b), 1681i, 1681c-2, 1681b, 1681g, 1681n, and 1681o). Plaintiff alleges he was
the victim of identity fraud in 2018 when a fraudulent account was opened in Plaintiff’s
name without his authorization. Id. at 1, 3. The account later went delinquent, damaging
Plaintiff’s credit. Id. at 3. Plaintiff discovered the fraudulent account and began disputing
Case 4:25-cv-00668-JCH Document 10 Filed 02/25/26 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
it in 2023. Id. In 2024, Plaintiff filed a formal dispute regarding the reporting of the account
with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and Defendant received notice
from the CFPB. Id. In 2025, Plaintiff gave written notice of the fraudulent account to
Defendant twice more, but he received no response. Id. Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed
to conduct a reasonable investigation as required by the FCRA and verified the account on
an improper basis. Id. at 3–4.
The FCRA was adopted “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,
with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of such
information.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681. Accordingly, the FCRA requires consumer reporting
agencies to “follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the
information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.” § 1681e(b). If a
consumer disputes the accuracy of his report, the reporting agency is required to “conduct
a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate
and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file.”
§1681i(a)(1)(A). The agency is then required to report the results of the reinvestigation to
the consumer within five business days of the conclusion of the reinvestigation.
§1681i(a)(6)(A). Further, “a consumer reporting agency shall block the reporting of any
information in the file of a consumer that the consumer identifies as information that
resulted from an alleged identity theft.” § 1681c-2(a). The FCRA imposes civil liability for
willful or negligent failure to comply with any of its requirements. See §§ 1681n, 1681o.
Liberally construed, Plaintiff has stated a claim for violations of 15 U.S.C.
§ 1681e(b) for failure to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible
accuracy; § 1681i(a) for failure to reinvestigate disputed information; and § 1681c-2 for
failure to block information resulting from identity theft. Plaintiff alleges Defendant was
willful under § 1681n and/or negligent under § 1681o in ignoring his notifications
regarding the identity theft and failing to correct his information.
Case 4:25-cv-00668-JCH Document 10 Filed 02/25/26 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 also alleges violations of § 1681b for unauthorized use of consumer reports
and § 1681g for failure to provide full disclosure. Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant
furnished his consumer report to an improper party or under improper circumstances. See
generally Doc. 1. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not stated a claim under § 1681b. See § 1681b
(establishing circumstances under which a consumer reporting agency may furnish a
consumer report). Further, § 1681g(a) requires a consumer reporting agency to “upon
request . . . clearly and accurately disclose to the consumer . . . [a]ll information in the
consumer’s file at the time of the request” and the source of such information. Plaintiff
does not allege that he requested this information from Defendant, nor that Defendant
failed to provide him with the information contained in his file. See Doc. 1 at 6–7.
Plaintiff’s allegations are related to the accuracy of the information contained in his account
and Defendant’s failure to address the reported identity theft. Accordingly, Plaintiff also
fails to state a claim under § 1681g.
IV. Warnings
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will order Defendant to answer Counts One,
Two, Three, Six, and Seven of the Complaint. The Court will dismiss Counts Four and
Five for failure to state a claim. Because Plaintiff may be able to state a claim with the
allegation of additional facts, the Court will dismiss these counts without prejudice.
See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127–29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff has leave
to file an amended complaint by March 12, 2026, but he is not required to do so in order to
proceed with the counts that survived screening. The Court warns Plaintiff that if he
chooses to amend his Complaint, the amended complaint will supersede the original
Complaint, and the Court will treat the original Complaint as nonexistent. Ferdik v.
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693
F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc).
If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including this
warning, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Bonzelet, 963 F.2d
at 1260–61 (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of
Case 4:25-cv-00668-JCH Document 10 Filed 02/25/26 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
the Court).
V. Order
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s Renewed Application to Proceed In District Court Without Prepaying
Fees or Costs (Doc. 9) is granted.
2. Counts Four and Five are dismissed without prejudice. If Plaintiff choses to file
an amended complaint, he may do so on or before March 12, 2026.
3. Defendant must respond to Counts One, Two, Three, Six, and Seven of the
Complaint.
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiff a service packet including the
Complaint (Doc. 1), this Order, and both the Summons and request for waiver.
5. Plaintiff is directed to provide service of the Summons, the Complaint, and this
Order on Defendant or obtain waiver of service under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(d). If Plaintiff does not either obtain waiver of service of the
Summons or complete service of the Summons, Complaint, and this Order on
Defendant within 60 days of the date of this Order, this action may be dismissed.
See L.R. Civ 16.2(b)(2)(B)(ii).
Dated this 24th day of February, 2026.
Case 4:25-cv-00668-JCH Document 10 Filed 02/25/26 Page 5 of 5