Doe v. Charter Communications
131 F.4th 323
| 5th Cir. | 2025Background
- John Z. Doe was found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) in Virginia and was later institutionalized, with his legal name eventually changed post-release.
- After relocating to Texas and obtaining a software developer job, a background check led to his arrest due to a Virginia bench warrant; Virginia declined to extradite him.
- Doe received a job offer from Charter Communications in 2023, pending a background check by HireRight LLC; HireRight reported an active criminal warrant, allegedly inaccurately, causing the offer's rescission.
- Doe claimed this reporting was inaccurate because the warrant was for a civil violation, not a crime, and challenged the record-keeping/reporting by both HireRight and the Arlington County Clerk, Paul Ferguson.
- Doe filed a pro se suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), ADA, and Fourteenth Amendment violations; the district court dismissed the suit as frivolous.
- On appeal, Doe challenged the dismissal of his claims, as well as denial of his motions to proceed anonymously and for appointment of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| § 1983 claims against Ferguson | Reporting civil rehab as criminal and disclosing damaging, inaccurate medical info violated 14th Amendment | Claims are duplicative of Virginia litigation and lack merit | Dismissed as frivolous and duplicative |
| FCRA claim against Charter | Charter used erroneous background info, violating FCRA | No private right of action against users of consumer reports | Dismissed; no private cause of action under §1681m |
| FCRA/ADA claims against HireRight & Charter | HireRight's reporting was inaccurate; Charter discriminated due to "insane" diagnosis | Reports relied on accurate VA court records; claims depend on warrant's lawfulness | Dismissed; no inaccuracy found and ADA not demonstrated |
| Anonymous filing and counsel appointment | Sensitive/medical info justified anonymity; counsel needed | Real name disclosed, no need for anonymity or counsel | Motions properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403 (5th Cir. 2013) (standard for dismissal as frivolous under § 1915)
- Carmouche v. Hooper, 77 F.4th 362 (5th Cir. 2023) (standard of review for dismissals as frivolous)
- Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116 (5th Cir. 1986) (IFP suits can be dismissed on complaint alone if frivolous)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (liberal construction of pro se complaints)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (definition of frivolous claim under §1915)