Fluker v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANTONIO LYNN FLUKER, 	: Civil No. 3:25-CV-1833
:
Plaintiff, 	:
: (Judge Mariani)
v. 	:
: (Chief Magistrate Judge Bloom)
EXPERIAN INFORMATION 	:
SOLUTIONS, INC. and EQUIFAX 	:
INFORMATION SERVICES LLC, 	:
:
Defendants. 	:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. 	Introduction
This case comes before us for a screening review of the
	pro se
plaintiff’s amended complaint. 1 	The plaintiff, Antonio Lynn Fluker, is
currently incarcerated in Federal Correctional Institution Schuylkill in
Minersville, Pennsylvania.2 	His initial complaint alleged violations of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) by the defendant, Experian
Information Solutions incorporated (“Experian”). 3 	Fluker alleged that
Experian failed to investigate certain inaccurate items on his credit
1 Doc. 5.
2 Doc. 2.
3
See Doc. 1.
Case 3:25-cv-01833-RDM-DFB Document 7 Filed 01/14/26 Page 1 of 13

2
report, 	and 	failed 	to 	follow 	reasonable 	procedures 	to 	ensure 	the
maximum possible accuracy of his credit report, in violation of 15 U.S.C.
§§ 1681i(a) and 1681e(b), respectively.4
We recommended that Fluker’s initial complaint be served on
Experian, except that his Section 1681e(b) claim should be dismissed for
violation of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.5 	Fluker
thereafter filed an amended complaint, which added Defendant Equifax
Information Services LLC (“Equifax”) and attempted to remedy the
defects cited in our recommendation. 6 	The district court adopted our
recommendation and referred the amended complaint to the undersigned
for consideration. 7
Fluker’s amended complaint asserts the same claims as his initial
complaint, with the exception that Equifax is now added. He alleges that
in June of 2025, while incarcerated, he began monitoring and reviewing
his 	credit 	file 	and 	found 	fraudulent 	accounts 	and 	other 	apparent
4
Id.
5 Doc. 4.
6 Doc. 5.
7 Doc. 6.
Case 3:25-cv-01833-RDM-DFB Document 7 Filed 01/14/26 Page 2 of 13

3
inaccuracies 	therein. 8 	He 	claims 	his 	file 	showed 	both 	allegedly
fraudulent 	accounts 	which 	he 	did 	not 	initiate 	and 	unauthorized
interactions with certain accounts that did belong to him. 9 	He asserts
that he alerted the defendants of these issues in July of 2025, but that
they failed to initiate an investigation into his claims. Fluker alleges that
he informed defendants he was incarcerated when certain accounts
appeared in his file, which he implies is proof of the illegitimacy of those
accounts. 10 	Fluker 	alleges 	that 	despite 	his 	reports, 	defendants
“negligently and willfully” failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation
as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a).11 	Fluker claims that defendants
failed 	to 	implement 	the 	necessary 	protections 	against 	fraudulent
information 	reaching 	his 	credit 	report, 	in 	violation 	of 	15 	U.S.C.
§ 1681e(b).12 	He alleges these failures caused his credit score to be
lowered by 150 points or more.13
8 Doc. 5 at 6.
9
Id.
10
Id.
11
Id.
12
Id at 6-7
.
13
Id at 7
.
Case 3:25-cv-01833-RDM-DFB Document 7 Filed 01/14/26 Page 3 of 13

4
As relief, Fluker requests $50,000 in compensatory damages, and
$250,000 in punitive damages from each defendant. 14 	For the following
reasons, we will recommend that the amended complaint be served on
defendants, but with one claim therein dismissed.
II. Discussion
A. Screening of
Pro Se Complaints – Standard of Review
We have a statutory obligation to preliminarily review
	pro se
complaints 	brought 	by 	plaintiffs 	given 	leave 	to 	proceed
	in 	forma
pauperis. 15 	We review such complaints to determine whether there are
frivolous or malicious claims, or if the complaint fails to state a claim
upon 	which 	relief 	may 	be 	granted.16 	This 	statutory 	preliminary
screening mirrors review under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, which provides for dismissal of a complaint for “failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” 17
With 	respect 	to 	this 	legal 	benchmark, 	under 	federal 	pleading
standards a plaintiff is required to set forth a “short and plain statement
14
Id. at 4.
15
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
16
Id.
17 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Case 3:25-cv-01833-RDM-DFB Document 7 Filed 01/14/26 Page 4 of 13

5
of 	the 	claim 	showing 	that 	the 	pleader 	is 	entitled 	to 	relief.” 18 	In
determining whether a complaint states a claim for relief under this
pleading standard, a court must accept the factual allegations in the
complaint as true 19 and accept “all reasonable inferences that can be
drawn from them after construing them in the light most favorable to the
non-movant.” 20 	However, 	a 	court 	is 	not 	required 	to 	accept 	legal
conclusions or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action.” 21
As the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has aptly summarized:
[A]fter
Iqbal, when presented with a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, district courts should conduct a two-
part analysis. First, the factual and legal elements of a claim
should be separated. The District Court must accept all of the
complaint’s well-pleaded facts as true, but may disregard any
legal conclusions.
	Id. Second, a District Court must then
determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint are
sufficient to show that the plaintiff has a “plausible claim for
relief.”
Id. at 1950. In other words, a complaint must do more
than allege the plaintiff’s entitlement to relief. A complaint
has to “show” such an entitlement with its facts.
See Phillips,
18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
19
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
20
Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O’Brien & Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d
Cir. 1994).
21
Id.;
see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“Threadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice”).
Case 3:25-cv-01833-RDM-DFB Document 7 Filed 01/14/26 Page 5 of 13

6
515 F.3d at 234–35. As the Supreme Court instructed in
Iqbal,
“[w]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer
more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint
has alleged—but it has not ‘show[n]’—‘that the pleader is
entitled to relief.’ ”
Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. This “plausibility”
determination will be “a context-specific task that requires
the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and
common sense.”
Id. 22
Generally, when considering a motion to dismiss, a court relies on
the complaint and its attached exhibits, as well as matters of public
record. 23 	A court can also consider “undisputedly authentic document[s]
that a defendant attached as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if the
plaintiff’s claims are based on the [attached] documents.”24 Additionally,
if the complaint relies on the contents of a document not physically
attached to the complaint but whose authenticity is not in dispute, the
court may consider such document in its determination. 25 	However, the
court may not rely on any other part of the record when deciding a motion
to dismiss. 26
22
Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210-11 (3d Cir. 2009).
23
Sands v. McCormick, 502 F.3d 263, 268 (3d Cir. 2007).
24
Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., 998 F.2d 1192,
1196 (3d Cir. 1993).
25
See Pryor v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 288 F.3d 548, 560 (3d Cir.
2002).
26
Jordan, 20 F.3d at 1261.
Case 3:25-cv-01833-RDM-DFB Document 7 Filed 01/14/26 Page 6 of 13

7
Finally, when reviewing a
pro se complaint, we are reminded that
such complaints are to be construed liberally, “so ‘as to do substantial
justice.’” 27 	We must apply the relevant law even if the
pro se plaintiff
does not mention it by name. 28
B. This Complaint Should be Partially Dismissed.
After 	review, 	we 	again 	conclude 	that 	the 	amended 	complaint
suffices to state a claim against the defendant for violation of Section
1681i but has not alleged sufficient facts to allege a violation of Section
1681e(b).
Section 	1681i 	details 	the 	process 	by 	which 	a 	consumer 	can
challenge apparently inaccurate information they discover in their credit
file. Where an individual alleges inaccuracies in their credit file, Section
1681i requires a credit reporting agency to “free of charge, conduct a
reasonable 	investigation” 	to 	determine 	the 	accuracy 	of 	disputed
information within 30 days of receiving notice of an alleged error. 29 	The
27
Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 234 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8(f)).
28
Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365, 369 (3d Cir. 2003) (citing
Higgins v.
Beyer, 293 F.3d 683, 688 (3d Cir. 2002)).
29 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A).
Case 3:25-cv-01833-RDM-DFB Document 7 Filed 01/14/26 Page 7 of 13

8
credit reporting agency must give notice to the consumer as to the results
of the investigation within five days of its completion. 30 	Separately,
Section 1681e(b) imposes a broad duty on credit reporting agencies to
“follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy” in
an individual credit report.31
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has held that these two Sections
of the FCRA are independently actionable, and that the burden of abiding
by Section 1681i’s requirements is born by credit reporting agencies. 32
The precise scope of the duty imposed by Section 1681i depends on “a
number of factors,” and the specific scope of that duty in a given instance
is a consideration for the fact finder.33 	Finally, to properly allege a
violation of this section, a plaintiff must make a showing that the
reported information was in fact inaccurate. 34
30 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681i(a)(6)(A) and (B).
31 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b).
32
Cushman v. Trans Union Corp., 115 F.3d 220, 223-25 (3d Cir. 1997).
33
Id. at 225-26.
34
Bibbs v. Trans Union LLC, 43 F.4th 331, 344 (3d Cir. 2022).
Case 3:25-cv-01833-RDM-DFB Document 7 Filed 01/14/26 Page 8 of 13

9
In his complaint, Fluker alleges that he alerted defendants to
purported inaccuracies in his credit report.35 He identified accounts that
were wholly inaccurate, in that Fluker had not engaged with those
parties at all, (and could not have, as he was incarcerated,) as well as acts
alleged to show some unknown third party engaging with legitimate
accounts. 36 	Fluker claims that he submitted supporting documentation
to defendants. 37 	Section 1681i is clear that all that is required to trigger
the defendants’ duty to investigate is that information in a consumer’s
file “is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency.” 38
Fluker 	alleges 	that, 	despite 	notifying 	the 	agency 	of 	the 	dispute,
defendants failed to conduct an investigation. 39 	Fulker also alleges that
he demonstrated that he was incarcerated during the period in which
certain allegedly inaccurate accounts appeared on his report—liberally
construed, we find this sufficient to satisfy the requirement of a showing
of inaccuracy. 	While Fluker does not explain how he could know there
35 Doc. 5 at 6.
36
Id.
37
Id.
38 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A).
39 Doc. 5 at 6.
Case 3:25-cv-01833-RDM-DFB Document 7 Filed 01/14/26 Page 9 of 13

10
was no investigation, even if defendants did conduct such investigation,
according 	to 	Fluker 	they 	did 	not 	inform 	him 	of 	the 	results 	of 	the
investigation as they were obligated to do, which is sufficient on its own
to 	show a 	violation. 40 	Thus, 	liberally 	construed 	and 	accepting 	the
plaintiff’s allegations as true, we conclude that Fluker has adequately
pleaded facts from which we can infer a violation of Section 1681i.
But Fluker’s alleged violation of Section 1681e(b) still runs afoul of
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and should be dismissed.
Rule 	8 	dictates 	that 	a 	complaint 	must 	contain 	“a 	short 	and 	plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”41 It
is well established that “[w]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the
court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint
has alleged—but it has not ‘shown’—‘that the pleader is entitled to
relief.’”42 	A 	complaint 	must 	contain 	“more 	than 	unadorned, 	the-
defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s].” 43
40 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(6)(A).
41 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
42
Fowler, 578 F.3d at 211 (citations omitted).
43
Id. (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
Case 3:25-cv-01833-RDM-DFB Document 7 Filed 01/14/26 Page 10 of 13

11
As 	discussed, 	Section 	1681e 	imposes 	an 	obligation 	to 	“follow
reasonable procedures” to ensure accuracy in credit reports.44 	While
Fluker 	seemingly 	attempts 	to 	cure 	the 	defect 	previously 	cited 	by
supplementing 	his 	Section 	1681e 	claim 	with 	additional 	factual
allegations, the amended complaint again does nothing to demonstrate
the defendants failed to follow reasonable procedures.45 	Instead, the
amended complaint appears to presume that, because Fluker’s consumer
report allegedly contained inaccurate information that was distributed to
Synchrony Bank and other creditors, such procedures must have been
absent.46 	This 	is 	a 	bare 	legal 	conclusion, 	supported 	by 	no 	fact.
Accordingly, based on these allegations, we cannot conclude that Fluker
has shown more than a mere possibility of a Section 1681e violation, and
so we conclude that the claim should be dismissed.
While 	we 	recognize 	that
	pro 	se 	plaintiffs 	should 	generally 	be
permitted to amend their complaints, 47 Fluker was already provided with
44 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b).
45 Doc. 5 at 6-7.
46
Id.
47
See Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, 482 F.3d 247,
253 (3d Cir. 2007);
Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 235 (3d Cir. 2004).
Case 3:25-cv-01833-RDM-DFB Document 7 Filed 01/14/26 Page 11 of 13

12
an opportunity to correct the defects previously cited and this amended
complaint failed to do so. Thus, we believe leave to amend would be futile
and now recommend that Fluker’s Section 1681e claim be dismissed with
prejudice.
III. 	Recommendation
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED
that 	the 	claim 	of 	a 	violation 	of 	15 	U.S.C. 	§ 1681e(b) 	should 	be
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 	IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED
THAT the complaint should be served on the Defendants as to the claim
that they violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681i.
The parties are further placed on notice that pursuant to Local Rule
72.3:
Any 	party 	may 	object 	to 	a 	magistrate 	judge’s 	proposed
findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or
matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) or making a
recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a
habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being
served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk
of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties,
written 	objections 	which 	shall 	specifically 	identify 	the
portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report
to which objection is made and the basis for such objections.
The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall
apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those
portions 	of 	the 	report 	or 	specified 	proposed 	findings 	or
recommendations to which objection is made and may accept,
Case 3:25-cv-01833-RDM-DFB Document 7 Filed 01/14/26 Page 12 of 13

13
reject, 	or 	modify, 	in 	whole 	or 	in 	part, 	the 	findings 	or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge,
however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her
discretion or where required by law, and may consider the
record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or
her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge
may 	also 	receive 	further 	evidence, 	recall 	witnesses 	or
recommit 	the 	matter 	to 	the 	magistrate 	judge 	with
instructions.
Submitted this 14th day of January 2026.
s/ Daryl F. Bloom
Daryl F. Bloom
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:25-cv-01833-RDM-DFB Document 7 Filed 01/14/26 Page 13 of 13