United States District Court, D. Delaware
ERRICK M. WRIGHT, Plaintiff,
CELLO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a Verizon Wireless, et al., Defendants.
GREGORY M. SLETT, Chief District Judge.
The plaintiff, Errick M. Wright ("Wright"), filed this lawsuit on January 6, 2014, raising claims under the Fair Credit Report Act and Delaware law. (D.I. 2.) He proceeds pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The court proceeds to review and screen the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Wright filed his complaint alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. and Delaware law. The complaint names twenty-three defendants and contains nine counts. The claims revolve around alleged unpaid debts, loan applications, and Wright's credit report.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
This court must dismiss, at the earliest practicable time, certain in forma pauperis and prisoner actions that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) ( in forma pauperis actions). The court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most favorable to a pro se plaintiff. Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). Because Wright proceeds pro se, his pleading is liberally construed and his complaint, "however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. at 94 (citations omitted).
Rule 8(d)(1) states, in pertinent part, that "[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise and direct." Rule 20(1)(a)(2), which is also applicable, states, in pertinent part, as follows:
Persons may... be joined in one action as defendants if any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a) (2)(A) and (B).
"In exercising its discretion [to join parties], the District Court must provide a reasoned analysis that comports with the requirements of the Rule, and that is based on the specific fact pattern presented by the plaintiffs and claims before the court." Hagan v. Rogers, 570 F.3d 146, 157 (3d Cir. 2009); see also Boretsky v. Governor of New Jersey, 433 F.App'x 73 (3d Cir. 2011) (unpublished).
Wright filed the instant complaint against twenty-three defendants. Notably, while Wright invokes similar law against the defendants, the complaint contains unrelated claims against the defendants, as follows:
1. Cellco Partnership doing business as Verizon Wireless ("Verizon"), Alexis Eon, Diversified Consultants, Inc. ("Diversified Consultants"), Experian Information Solutions Inc. ("Experian"), Teresa Iwonsky ("Iwonsky"), Equifax Information Services, LLC ("Equifax"), and Trans Union, LLC ("Trans Union") relating to an ...