Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 ALISA RAZUMOVSKY, Case No. 2:25-cv-02257-DAD-CSK

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER GRANTING IFP REQUEST AND

GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND

14 NELNET SERVICING, LLC,

(ECF Nos. 2, 9)

15 Defendant.

16

17 Plaintiff Alisa Razumovsky is representing herself in this action and seeks leave to

18 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1 (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff’s

19 application in support of the IFP request makes the required financial showing.

20 Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s IFP request.

21 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

22 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis

23 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to

24 state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a

25 defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith,

26 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (2000) (en banc). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an

27

1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R.

28 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c).

1 arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In

2 reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the factual

3 allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and

4 construes those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Neitzke, 490

5 U.S. at 327; Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960

6 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011).

7 Pleadings by self-represented litigants are liberally construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627

8 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (liberal construction appropriate even post–Iqbal).

9 However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable

10 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d

11 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does

12 not suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007);

13 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

14 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough

15 facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A

16 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court

17 to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

18 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the

19 complaint and an opportunity to amend unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be

20 cured by amendment. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31; Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80

21 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996).

22 II. DISCUSSION

23 Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant Nelnet Servicing, LLC alleging the

24 following six violations: (1) 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a) based on a duty to report accurate

25 and complete information; (2) 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(1)(A) for furnishing information

26 with knowledge of inaccuracy; (3) 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(1)(B) for continuing to report

27 inaccurate information after notice; (4) 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(2)(B) for failing to update

28 or correct inaccurate information; (5) 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(8)(E)(iv) for failing to

1 properly respond to a dispute; and (6) Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.25(a) for knowingly

2 furnishing incomplete and inaccurate information to credit reporting agencies. First

3 Amended Complaint (“FAC”) at 4 (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff alleges in 2024, she disputed her

4 student loan accounts with Defendant due to incomplete and inaccurate information on

5 her credit report. FAC ¶¶ 8-13. Plaintiff alleges she disputed various discrepancies she

6 had discovered on her credit report, but that Defendant failed to conduct a proper

7 investigation, fix these discrepancies, and provide accurate and timely information to

8 credit reporting agencies. Id. ¶¶ 14-16.

9 A. No Private Right of Action Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)

10 The First Amended Complaint raises five causes of action (Claims 1-5) that are

11 brought pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a). See FAC at 4. Under the Fair Credit

12 Reporting Act, a claim for violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a) “can be pursued only by

13 federal or state officials, and not by a private party.” Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson,

14 LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1162 (9th Cir. 2009). There is no private right of action that Plaintiff,

15 as private citizen, can bring pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a). However, the Fair

16 Credit Reporting Act does “expressly provide for a private right of action for willful or

17 negligent noncompliance with its requirements” pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n and

18 1681o that is applicable to violations of the duties imposed by 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b).

19 Id. Therefore, any of the duties enumerated in 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) can provide for a

20 private right of action. Id. Because the Court finds that Plaintiff may be able to state a

21 claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to amend

22 her First Amended Complaint to the extent Plaintiff believes she has a viable claim

23 against Defendant for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

24 Claims 1-5 against Defendant are dismissed with leave to amend. See Lopez, 203 F.3d

25 at 1130-31.

26 B. State Law Claim

27 Plaintiff also seeks to bring a claim pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.25(a) for

28 furnishing incomplete and inaccurate information to credit reporting agencies, which is a

1 state law claim. As discussed above, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under federal

2 law. Accordingly, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s

3 state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Campos v. Fresno Deputy Sheriff’s

4 Association, 535 F.Supp.3d 913, 931 (E.D. Cal. 2021); Religious Tech. Ctr. V.

5 Wollersheim, 971 F.2d 364, 367-68 (9th Cir. 1992).

6 C. Leave to Amend

7 Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, even a pro se

8 litigant’s complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of a claim plainly and

9 succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). In

10 light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, and because it is at least conceivable that Plaintiff could

11 allege additional facts to state claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), the Court finds it

12 appropriate to grant Plaintiff an opportunity to amend her First Amended Complaint. See

13 Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31 (indicating that prior to dismissal, the court is to tell the

14 plaintiff of deficiencies in the complaint and provide an opportunity to cure – if it appears

15 at all possible the defects can be corrected).

16 If Plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, this new pleading shall allege facts

17 establishing the existence of federal jurisdiction and must contain a short and plain

18 statement of Plaintiff's claim. The allegations of the complaint must be set forth in

19 sequentially numbered paragraphs, with each paragraph number being one greater than

20 the one before, each paragraph having its own number, and no paragraph number being

21 repeated anywhere in the complaint. Each paragraph should be limited “to a single set of

22 circumstances” where possible. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Forms are available to help

23 plaintiffs organize their complaint in the proper way. They are available at the Clerk's

24 Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at

25 www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. The amended complaint should be titled “Second

26 Amended Complaint.”

27 The amended complaint must not require the Court and the defendants to guess

28 at what is being alleged against whom. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th

1 Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of a complaint where the district court was “literally

2 guessing as to what facts support the legal claims being asserted against certain

3 defendants”). The amended complaint must not require the Court to spend its time

4 “preparing the ‘short and plain statement’ which Rule 8 obligated plaintiffs to submit.” Id.

5 at 1180. The amended complaint must not require the Court and defendants to prepare

6 lengthy outlines “to determine who is being sued for what.” Id. at 1179.

7 Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior complaint or other filing in

8 order to make the amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an

9 amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a

10 general rule, an amended complaint supersedes prior complaint(s), and once the

11 amended complaint is filed and served, any previous complaint no longer serves any

12 function in the case. Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012).

13 D. Plaintiff’s Miscellaneous Motion

14 Plaintiff has also filed a motion for extension of time to file a response to

15 Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 15.) Defendant’s motion to dismiss was denied

16 as premature on December 9, 2025 due to the pending screening of Plaintiff’s FAC. See

17 12/9/2025 Order (ECF No. 12). The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for

18 extension of time as unnecessary.

19 III. CONCLUSION

20 In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED that:

21 1. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (ECF No. 15) is DENIED;

22 2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED;

23 3. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) is DISMISSED with leave

24 to amend; and

25 4. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file a Second

26 Amended Complaint that complies with the instructions provided above. If

27 Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order, the undersigned may

28 / / /

1 recommend that this action be dismissed.

2

3 Dated: February 27, 2026 Cc iG $s

4 CHI S00 KIM

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5 || 4, razu2257.25

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28