Prater v. Am. Heritage Fed. Credit Union

Citation: 351 F. Supp. 3d 912Docket: CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-CV-5515

Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania; January 6, 2019; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Charmaine Prater, representing herself, filed a civil lawsuit against multiple defendants including the American Heritage Federal Credit Union and several individuals associated with the institution. She has requested to proceed in forma pauperis, which the Court has granted, but her Complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. Prater's claims, which are somewhat unclear due to the nature of her pleading and handwriting, allege that since 2016, the defendants have taken control of her accounts, created unauthorized accounts, and misapplied payments, specifically asserting that payments meant for her car loan were incorrectly applied to a vacation loan. She claims to have faced fraud, discrimination, and retaliation, stating that she is at significant risk due to the defendants’ actions. Prater also asserts civil rights violations, securities fraud, disability violations, identity theft, housing discrimination, and due process violations, claiming these actions have led to her displacement and other harms. She seeks $180,000 in compensatory and punitive damages and requests protection against the repossession of her property, likely her car, although this is not explicitly stated.

Prater has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis due to her inability to pay the filing fees for her civil action. Her Complaint is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which mandates dismissal if it fails to state a claim. The standard for this determination aligns with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), requiring sufficient factual matter to establish a plausible claim for relief, as outlined in Ashcroft v. Iqbal. The Court will interpret her pro se allegations liberally; however, mere conclusory statements are inadequate. Additionally, the Court may dismiss cases that are duplicative of previous or ongoing litigation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

A complaint must comply with Rule 8(a), which necessitates a clear and concise statement of the claim to inform the defendant and the Court. Prater's Complaint lacks clarity, failing to specify which defendants are responsible for particular actions and conflating different incidents, making it difficult for any defendant to respond. This violates Rule 8's requirements.

Furthermore, Prater appears to assert civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which necessitates demonstrating a violation of constitutional rights by parties acting under color of state law. The Complaint does not indicate that any defendants are state actors, providing no foundation for constitutional claims. Thus, her civil rights claims lack merit due to this deficiency.

Prater's allegations of securities fraud lack the necessary elements for a valid claim under the Securities Acts, specifically failing to demonstrate a connection between misrepresentations or omissions and the purchase or sale of securities. Consequently, these claims will be dismissed. Additionally, her disability and housing discrimination claims are insufficiently articulated, lacking details about her alleged disability and the nature of the discrimination, leading to their dismissal as well. Prater's assertion of identity theft is also invalid, as the cited federal statute, 18 U.S.C. 1028A, does not support a civil cause of action, leaving her without standing to pursue such a claim. Furthermore, while she may be attempting to assert claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), her vague references to inaccuracies in her credit report fail to meet the necessary legal requirements. Specifically, she has not provided a clear account of the disputed information, nor has she shown that she filed a notice of dispute with a consumer reporting agency or that the furnisher of information failed to investigate. As a result, these claims under the FCRA are also dismissed.

Prater's potential state law claims lack an independent jurisdictional basis. The only applicable federal jurisdiction is under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a), which requires diversity of citizenship and a controversy exceeding $75,000. Complete diversity mandates that no plaintiff shares a state with any defendant. Individuals are deemed citizens of their domicile, while federal credit unions are classified as "national citizens" and not citizens of any state unless their activities are localized within a single state. The responsibility to demonstrate federal jurisdiction lies with the asserting party. In this instance, the Complaint does not specify the citizenship of the parties, indicating that Prater has not met the burden for establishing subject matter jurisdiction over the state law claims. Given that all parties appear to be based in Pennsylvania, diversity under 1332(a) is unlikely. The Court will allow Prater to proceed in forma pauperis but will dismiss her Complaint without prejudice, permitting her to file an amended complaint within thirty days to address identified deficiencies. An appropriate Order will be issued, adopting the pagination from the CM-ECF docketing system.