Eldridge v. Innovis Data Solutions, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
SORETHA M. ELDRIDGE,
Plaintiff,
v.
INNOVIS DATA SOLUTIONS,
INC.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:25-cv-1909
Judge J. Philip Calabrese
Magistrate Judge Reuben J. Sheperd
OPINION AND ORDER
Soretha M. Eldridge filed this action without a lawyer against credit reporting
agency Innovis Data Solutions, Inc. 	The complaint contains very little factual
information. 	Plaintiff alleges she is a survivor of human trafficking. 	She claims
that she provided Innovis with “official human trafficking documentation” and that
they “denied [her] dispute three times, preventing her from exercising her rights as
a victim of human trafficking.” (ECF No. 1, PageID #2.) She contends that Innovis
deliberately failed to block fraudulent accounts in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681c-2.
Based on 18 U.S.C. § 1595, which allows trafficking victims to recover damages from
those who knowingly benefit from harms related to trafficking, she seeks monetary
damages in excess of one million dollars.
ANALYSIS
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454
U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the
Case: 1:25-cv-01909-JPC Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/10/25 1 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

2
Court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis action under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e) if
it fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted or if it lacks an arguable basis
in law or fact. 	Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989); Sistrunk v. City of
Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996). 	A claim lacks an arguable basis in
law or fact when it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or when
the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.
A cause of action fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted when it
lacks “plausibility in the complaint.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 564
(2007). A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009).
The factual allegations in the pleading must be sufficient to raise the right to relief
above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the
complaint are true. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. A Plaintiff is not required to include
detailed factual allegations, but must provide more than “an unadorned, the-
defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” 	Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 	A pleading
that offers legal conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not meet this pleading standard. Id. In reviewing a complaint, the Court must
construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. 	Bibbo v. Dean
Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151 F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir. 1998).
Plaintiff’s complaint fails to meet the minimum pleading requirement of Rule
8. 	To meet the minimum pleading requirements, the complaint must give the
defendant fair notice of what Plaintiff’s legal claims are and the factual grounds on
Case: 1:25-cv-01909-JPC Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/10/25 2 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

3
which they rest. Bassett v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 528 F.3d 426, 437 (6th
Cir. 2008).
Plaintiff cites 15 U.S.C. § 1681c-2 as the legal basis for her complaint. (ECF
No. 1, PageID #3.) That statute requires a consumer credit reporting agency to block
information that the consumer identifies as resulting from an alleged identity theft.
Id. § 1681c-2(a). 	Then, the agency notifies the furnisher of information that the
information may be a result of identity theft; that an identity theft report has been
filed; and that a block has been requested by the consumer. 	Id. § 1681c-2(b). 	It
makes no mention of human trafficking. The consumer credit reporting agency may
decline to block information if it reasonably determines that the information was
blocked in error or a block was requested by the consumer in error; if the information
was blocked or requested to be blocked by the consumer on the basis of a material
misrepresentation of fact; or if it determines that the consumer obtained possession
of goods, services, or money as a result of the blocked transaction. Id. § 1681c-2(c)(1).
Here, Plaintiff does not provide any factual allegations with regard to a claim
under the statute. She does not indicate which debt or debts she is disputing, how
she disputed them with Defendant, or what reason Defendant gave for not blocking
the accounts. Her complaint is stated solely as a legal conclusion. Without factual
allegations, the complaint does not meet the minimum pleading requirements of
Rule 8.
Case: 1:25-cv-01909-JPC Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/10/25 3 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

4
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) and DISMISSES this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1915(e). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the Court certifies that an appeal
from this decision could not be taken in good faith.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 10, 2025
J. Philip Calabrese
United States District Judge
Northern District of Ohio
Case: 1:25-cv-01909-JPC Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/10/25 4 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>