# GRAY v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION

> District Court, D. New Jersey · July 3, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10656248

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. New Jersey
- **Decided:** July 3, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10656248

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE

CARTIER GRAY, HONORABLE KAREN M. WILLIAMS
Plaintiff,
No, 24-6110 (SMW-SAK)
v.
NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, ef a/., MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER
Defendants.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court by way of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, filed
June 17, 2024, in response to this Court’s Order directing Plaintiff to amend his original Complaint
within 30 days of May 31, 2024;
THE COURT NOTING that it has previously granted Plaintiff's IFP Application on May
31, 2024; and
THE COURT FINDING it is required to screen the Complaint pursuant to 28 U,S.C,
§1915(e)(2)(B), and dismiss any claim that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief,
or otherwise seeks relief from an immune defendant. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’
Amended Complaint is dismissed for failing to state a claim.
While the Court has the obligation to construe a pro se litigant’s pleadings, it does not
require the Court to credit bald assertions or legal conclusions: “[P]ro se litigants still must allege
sufficient facts in their complaints to support a claim.” Griffin v. State Dep’t of Human Servs.,
No. 18-14697, 2019 WL 3369783 at *2 (D.N.J, Jul. 26, 2019) (internal citation omitted), “Even a
pro se complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if the allegations set forth by the

plaintiff cannot be construed as supplying facts to support a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.”
dd, (internal citations omitted).
Here, the Court notes that Plaintiff amended his Complaint to assert that Defendant John
Collins, the Chief Financial Officer of Navy Federal Credit Union, violated Plaintiff's “liberties
to contract” and his “right to credit” pursuant to 41 U.S.C. § 6503 when the credit union refused
to issue Plaintiff a personal loan of $30,000.
The Court notes that 41 U.S.C. § 6503 regulates remedies when there is a breach or
violation of required contract terms for contracts pursuant to 41 U.S.C. § 6502, which is applicable
to “contract[s] made by an agency of the United States for the manufacture or furnishing of
materials, supplies, articles, or equipment, in an amount exceeding $10,000.” Here, 41 U.S.C. §
6503 is inapplicable because Plaintiff. is not an agency of. the Federal Government.
Further, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691, prohibits creditors from
discriminating against credit applicants on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex,
marital status, age (provided the applicant has the capacity to contract), an applicant’s income
deriving from public assistance, or in retaliation against an applicant’s exercise of any right
pursuant to the Consumer Credit Protection Act, (15 U.S.C. § 1601). To establish a prima facie
claim under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, a plaintiff must show that he: 1) was a member of
a protected class, 2) applied for credit from defendant, 3) was qualified for the credit, and 4) was
denied credit. See Parker v. Route 22 Honda, No. 22-7117, 2023 WL 157587 at *2 (D.N.J. Jan.
11, 2023). Plaintiff does not allege any facts to suggest that that he was a member of a protected
class or that he was qualified for the line of credit requested.
Ultimately, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint does not contain “enough facts to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face,” Bell Atl Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); and

THEREFORE, the Complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
ITIS this 3s ‘day of July, 2024 hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiffs Amended Complaint (ECF No. 4) is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his First Amended
Complaint to address the deficiencies noted herein within 30 days of issuance of this Order; and
FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not amend his First Amended Complaint
within 30 days, the Clerk is directed to close the case without further Order from the Court; and
FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order upon
Plaintiff by regular U.S. mail.

| ss
i “aay Bye ee
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10656248. Public record. Not legal advice.