Pamphile v. Allstate Insurance Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
WILLIAM PAMPHILE,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 25-13990-BEM
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MURPHY, J.
On December 26, 2025, William Pamphile, a resident of Malden, Massachusetts, filed a
pro se complaint, an emergency motion, and an application to proceed in district court without
prepaying fees or costs (also referred to as a motion or application for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis). Dkts. 1-3.
For the reasons stated below, the Court will ALLOW the motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, DENY the emergency motion, and direct the clerk to issue a summons.
I. 	BACKGROUND
The sole defendant named in the complaint is Allstate Insurance Company. Dkt. 1 (case
caption). Plaintiff invokes this Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Id. at 2. According
to Plaintiff, Defendant’s actions and inactions violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”),
15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. Id. at 1. Specifically, he complains that Defendant furnished “inaccurate
information and fail[ed] to conduct reasonable investigations after notice.” 	Id. at 8. 	For relief,
Plaintiff seeks damages as well as emergency relief as follows:
Case 1:25-cv-13990-BEM Document 5 Filed 12/30/25 Page 1 of 4

Temporary safter housing immediately / AIR BnB
Food and daily living support
Utilities and medical support
Six (6) months of post-resolution housing and support
Id.
Attached to the complaint are more than two dozen exhibits. 	Dkt. 1-1 – 1-30. 	In his
“Statement of the Case,” Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s conduct “caused the destruction of
Plaintiff’s credit, denial of mortgage financing, prolonged exposure to hazardous mold and
pervasive secondhand smoke, worsening respiratory illness, severe emotional distress, and
significant financial hardship to Plaintiff and his family.” Dkt. 1-1 at 2. 	This action was assigned
as related to Plaintiff’s earlier action, Pamphile v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 25-12738-BEM (D. Mass.
Nov. 20, 2025) (dismissing Plaintiff’s claims for fraud, negligence, and emotional distress as time-
barred). Id. at 1-2 at 1.
II. 	MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Upon review of the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 3, the Court
concludes that Plaintiff has adequately demonstrated he is without income or assets to pay the
filing fee. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.
III. 	MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
In his emergency motion, Plaintiff seeks “emergency temporary relief in the form of safe
housing, food, and basic living support, pending resolution of this action.” Dkt. 2 at 1. Because
Plaintiff is not represented by an attorney, the Court construes his pleadings more liberally than a
pleading drafted by a lawyer. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). Even
with a liberal construction, the Court will deny the emergency motion.
Case 1:25-cv-13990-BEM Document 5 Filed 12/30/25 Page 2 of 4

“A request for a preliminary injunction is a request for extraordinary relief.” Cushing v.
Packard, 30 F.4th 27, 35 (1st Cir. 2022). 	The plaintiff bears the burden to demonstrate: “(1) a
substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a significant risk of irreparable harm if the
injunction is withheld, (3) a favorable balance of hardships, and (4) a fit (or lack of friction)
between the injunction and the public interest.” NuVasive, Inc. v. Day, 954 F.3d 439, 443 (1st Cir.
2020) (quotation marks omitted). To obtain the more “extraordinary relief of a temporary
restraining order,” as compared to a motion for a preliminary injunction, a party must allege
“immediate and irreparable” injury or loss that will occur before the adverse party can be heard in
opposition. Imasuen v. Winn Prop. Mgmt., 2013 WL 6859094, at *3 (D. Mass. Dec. 26, 2013);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A).
Although the First Circuit has not yet considered whether the FCRA authorizes injunctive
relief, the Fifth Circuit and several district courts have held that the only remedy for an FCRA
violation is actual damages, not injunctive relief. 	See Gagnon v. Pennsylvania Higher Educ.
Assistance Agency, No. 20-381-JAW, 2020 WL 7265843, at *2 (D. Me. Dec. 10, 2020) (citing
Washington v. CSC Credit Servs., Inc., 199 F.3d 263, 268 (5th Cir. 2000); Hintz v. Experian Info.
Solutions, Inc., No. 3:10CV535-HEH, 2010 WL 4025061, at *6-7 (E.D. Va. Oct. 13, 2010); White
v. First Am. Registry, Inc., 378 F. Supp. 2d 419 (S.D.N.Y. 2005); Howard v. Blue Ridge Bank, 371
F. Supp. 2d 1139, 1145 (N.D. Cal. 2005)). 	Thus, Plaintiff cannot demonstrate a likelihood of
success concerning his request for injunctive relief.
In addition, Plaintiff has failed to provide notice to Defendant as there is no certification in
writing of any effort made to provide at least informal notice and no details as to the reasons why
such notice should not be required in view of an immediate and irreparable need for injunctive
relief. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). 	Additionally, the request is not supported with a separate
Case 1:25-cv-13990-BEM Document 5 Filed 12/30/25 Page 3 of 4

memorandum of reasons, see Local Rule 7.1(b)(1) (“A party filing a motion shall at the same time
file a memorandum of reasons, including citation of supporting authorities, why the motion should
be granted. Affidavits and other documents setting forth or evidencing facts on which the motion
is based shall be filed with the motion.”).
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that
1. 	The motion (Dkt. 3) for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is ALLOWED.
2. 	The emergency motion (Dkt. 2) is DENIED.
3. 	The Clerk shall issue a summons for service of the complaint and shall send the
summons, a copy of the complaint, and this Order to Plaintiff, who must serve Defendant with
these documents in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
4. 	Plaintiff may elect to have service made by the United States Marshals Service
(“USMS”). 	If Plaintiff chooses to have service completed by the USMS, he shall provide the
agency with a copy of this order, all papers for service, and a completed USM-285 form for each
party to be served. 	The USMS shall complete service as directed by Plaintiff with all costs of
service to be advanced by the United States.
5. 	Plaintiff shall have 90 days from the date of the issuance of the summons to
complete service. Failure to complete service in a timely fashion may result in dismissal of this
action without prior notice to Plaintiff. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); Local Rule 4.1 (D. Mass.).
So Ordered.
/s/ Brian E. Murphy
Brian E. Murphy
Dated: December 30, 2025 	Judge, United States District Court
Case 1:25-cv-13990-BEM Document 5 Filed 12/30/25 Page 4 of 4