Keys v. Veterans United Mortgage Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
SIDNEY KEYS, SR., 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 4:25-cv-01230-HEA
)
VETERANS UNITED MORTGAGE 	)
CO., 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on self-represented Plaintiff Sidney Keys’
Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. 	[ECF
No. 2]. Having reviewed the Application, the Court grants it and waives the filing
fee. 	For the reasons discussed below, the Court dismisses this action without
prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Legal Standard on Initial Review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court may dismiss a complaint filed in
forma pauperis if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. When reviewing a complaint filed by a self-represented
person under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court accepts the well-pleaded facts as true, and
liberally construes the complaint. 	Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007);
Case: 4:25-cv-01230-HEA Doc. #: 4 Filed: 12/18/25 Page: 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A “liberal construction” means that if
the essence of an allegation is discernible, the district court should construe the
complaint in a way that permits the claim to be considered within the proper legal
framework. 	Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015). Even so, self-
represented plaintiffs must allege facts that, if true, state a claim for relief as a matter
of law. Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir. 1980); see also Stone v.
Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004) (refusing to supply additional facts or
to construct a legal theory for the self-represented plaintiff).
To sufficiently state a claim for relief, a complaint must plead more than “legal
conclusions” and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action [that are]
supported by mere conclusory statements.” 	Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). A plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more than
a “mere possibility of misconduct.” Id. at 679. “A claim has facial plausibility 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. at 678.
Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is a context-
specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and
common sense. Id. at 679.
Case: 4:25-cv-01230-HEA Doc. #: 4 Filed: 12/18/25 Page: 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
The Complaint
Plaintiff has filed numerous lawsuits in this Court. 	This year alone, he has
filed 23 new cases. 	Here, he asserts Defendant Veterans United Mortgage Co.
denied preapproving his home loan because he did not have a credit score of 620 or
higher. He states his belief that if a disabled veteran applies for a VA home loan for
the first time, the credit score is not relevant. He seeks $3 million in damages.
Discussion
Plaintiff identifies racial discrimination as the basis of his claims. 	Title 42
U.S.C. § 1981 provides, in relevant part, that “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of
the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and
enforce contracts.” 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a). To “make and enforce contracts” includes
“the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the
enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual
relationship.” 	42 U.S.C. § 1981(b). 	To assert a prima facie claim under § 1981,
plaintiff must allege, among other things, that: (1) he was a member of a protected
class; and (2) the defendant acted with discriminatory intent. 	Yang v. Robert Half
Int’l, Inc., 79 F.4th 949, 962 (8th Cir. 2023).
Plaintiff is an African American man. He contends that Defendant denied him
a home loan due to racial discrimination. 	Despite this contention, he offers no
factual allegations that would allow the Court to infer racial animus. 	Plaintiff’s
Case: 4:25-cv-01230-HEA Doc. #: 4 Filed: 12/18/25 Page: 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
assertion of discrimination, without more, constitutes a legal conclusion that the
Court need not accept as true. 	See Barton v. Taber, 820 F.3d 958, 964 (8th Cir.
2016); Brown v. Green Tree Serv. LLC, 820 F.3d 371, 372-73 (8th Cir. 2016) (stating
that the court must accept factual allegations in complaint as true but is not required
to “accept as true any legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation”). The Court
finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim of racial discrimination. 	It
will not supply additional facts for Plaintiff, nor will it construct a legal theory that
assumes unalleged facts. See Stone, 364 F.3d at 914.
Conclusion
Liberally construed, the Court finds the complaint fails to state a plausible
claim of racial discrimination under § 1981. For these reasons the Court dismisses
this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 	See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in district
court without prepaying fees or costs is GRANTED. [ECF No. 2]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED 	that this case is 	DISMISSED 	without
prejudice. 	A 	separate 	Order 	of 	Dismissal 	will 	accompany 	this 	Opinion,
Memorandum and Order.
Case: 4:25-cv-01230-HEA Doc. #: 4 Filed: 12/18/25 Page: 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel is
DENIED as moot. [ECF No. 3]
Dated this 18 th day of 	December, 2025.
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:25-cv-01230-HEA Doc. #: 4 Filed: 12/18/25 Page: 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>