Fleurimond v. Fidelty Investments, 1:25-cv-00246

Ricardo Fleurimond, a pro se plaintiff residing in New York, filed suit against Fidelity Investments in connection with his attempt to create a trust account.
Fleurimond alleges that his credit application with Fidelity, and their subsequent actions, created an implied contract and that Fidelity breached this contract by not issuing credit and by closing the account.
The complaint references alleged violations of multiple federal statutes (e.g., Truth in Lending Act, Federal Reserve Act), constitutional amendments, and various contracts and doctrines (e.g., estoppel by acquiescence).
The case was transferred from the Eastern District of New York to the Southern District of Ohio and was reviewed sua sponte for frivolousness or failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
The plaintiff seeks substantial damages, claiming duress, impediment to commerce, and improper tax reporting caused by defendant's actions and silence in response to his communications.
The court conducted a preliminary screening to determine whether the claims had an arguable basis in law or fact and if they established a federal question or diversity jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Existence of Breach of Contract	Acceptance of application created a contract; Fidelity breached it	No specific contract identified	No plausible breach of contract claim
TILA Violation	Defendant failed to provide disclosures required by TILA	Defendant not alleged to have violated TILA	No facts showing TILA violation
Federal Reserve Act as cause of action	Sought damages for alleged violations of Federal Reserve Act	Individuals have no private right under Act	No right of action; no jurisdiction
Constitutional Violations	Defendant violated various constitutional rights	Fidelity not a state actor	No state action; not subject to claims

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (standard for dismissing frivolous claims under § 1915)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (definition of frivolous claims and claims lacking legal basis)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (standard for stating a claim to relief that is plausible)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (requirements for factual enhancement in pleadings)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (liberal construction of pro se complaints)
Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179 (dichotomy between state action and private conduct for constitutional claims)