Jaylon Keandre Gibson V Community Choice Financial Of Mississippi Llc

Key Facts

Transaction Type

Issues

• The court must determine if the private defendant Community Choice Financial of Mississippi, LLC can be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of the Plaintiff's First Amendment rights. Under West v. Atkins, a plaintiff must show the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. For a private actor to be liable under § 1983, the conduct must be fairly attributable to the State, requiring proof of conspiracy or concerted action with state actors. Gibson sued only CCFM, a private company, without alleging any connection to state actors, making this claim incurable and subject to dismissal with prejudice.
• The court must determine if Gibson has alleged facts supporting a breach of contract claim. The elements of breach of contract require: (1) a valid and binding contract, (2) breach of the contract, and (3) monetary damage to the plaintiff. Gibson attached a letter to his Complaint indicating his loan application was denied and that no contract was entered into. The Court agrees Gibson hasn't alleged facts supporting a breach-of-contract claim but, given his pro se status, allows leave to amend to properly describe the alleged contract and attach it to the amended complaint.
• The court must determine if the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits religious discrimination in financial lending. The Act prohibits discrimination in employment, public accommodations like restaurants and hotels, and programs receiving federal financial assistance. The Court agrees with the Defendant that the Act does not address religious discrimination in financial lending. However, because pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards, Gibson may seek leave to amend to properly state a discrimination claim under the correct legal theory.
• The court must determine if CCFM qualifies as a 'consumer reporting agency' under the FCRA, which regulates entities that compile and disseminate personal information about consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties. The FCRA requires consumer reporting agencies to clearly and accurately disclose all information in a consumer's file upon request. Gibson has not alleged facts showing CCFM regularly engages in assembling or evaluating credit information to furnish reports to third parties, and the Court agrees the FCRA claim lacks sufficient factual detail but allows leave to amend.
• The court must determine if the Mississippi Credit Availability Act (MCAA) provides a private right of action for consumers. The MCAA authorizes the Mississippi Commissioner of Banking and Consumer Finance to sue to enjoin violations when there is reasonable cause to believe a person is violating provisions of the Act. However, the statute does not provide a private right of action for individual consumers. The Court agrees with the Defendant that there is no private right of action under Mississippi Code section 75-67-629, making this claim incurable and dismissable with prejudice.

Holdings

Remedies

Legal Principles

• Section 1983 claims require plaintiffs to allege: (1) violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. Private actors cannot be held liable under § 1983 unless they acted under color of state law or conspired with state actors. First Amendment claims against private companies fail this standard.
• The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) regulates consumer reporting agencies that compile and disseminate personal information about consumers. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(a)(2), consumer reporting agencies must clearly and accurately disclose all information in a consumer's file upon request. The Act defines a consumer reporting agency as a person that regularly engages in assembling or evaluating consumer credit information for furnishing reports to third parties.
• Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) requires plaintiffs to plead enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. All well-pleaded facts are accepted as true and viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, but legal conclusions alone are insufficient. Pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings, but conclusory allegations still cannot prevent dismissal.

Precedent Name

• Martin K. Eby Constr. Co. v. Dall. Area Rapid Transit
• Adickes v. S. Kress Co.
• Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc.
• Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
• Hart v. Bayer Corp.
• TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez
• S. Christian Leadership Conf. v. Sup. Ct. of the State of La.
• In re S. Scrap Material Co.
• Ashcroft v. Iqbal
• West v. Atkins
• Jones v. Greninger
• Johnson v. City of Shelby
• Miller v. Stanmore
• Favre Prop. Mgmt., LLC v. Cinque Bambini
• Mylett v. Jeane
• Arvie v. Cathedral of Faith Missionary Baptist Church

Cited Statute

• Mississippi Credit Availability Act MCAA
• Civil Rights Act Section 1983
• Equal Credit Opportunity Act ECOA
• Fair Credit Reporting Act FCRA

Judge Name

Passage Text

• "For the reasons stated, CCFM's motion to dismiss [18] is granted. Gibson's claims under § 1983, the First Amendment, the Bill of Rights, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the MCCA are dismissed with prejudice. His claims for discrimination in lending, violation of the FCRA, and breach of contract are dismissed without prejudice. If he chooses, Gibson may move for leave to file an amended complaint under Rule 15(a)(2) within 14 days of this Order."
• "Defendant's motion is granted, and because this defect is incurable, leave to amend is unwarranted. The § 1983 claim alleging a violation of the First Amendment is dismissed. Gibson similarly alleges that CCFM violated 'the Bill of Rights regarding We The People rights to be informed and right to be heard but failed to provide any significant and/or significance of evidence regarding such denial of services and/or products within more than a reasonable amount of time.' For the reasons explained above, Gibson's claim under the Bill of Rights is dismissed, and because this defect is incurable, leave to amend is unwarranted."
• "To overcome a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a plaintiff must plead 'enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)."

Damages / Relief Type