Full Opinion

Case: 26-30009 Document: 158-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/06/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 26-30009 November 6, 2026 Summary Calendar ____________ Thomas B. Plunkett, III Clerk Devonte Francis, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Experian Information Solutions, Incorporated; Transunion, L.L.C.; Equifax Information Services, L.L.C.; Innovis Data Solutions, Incorporated; Credit Karma, L.L.C.; Meritus Federal Credit Union; Toyota Motor Credit Corporation; Self Financial Incorporated; SouthState Bank N. A.; Mission Lance, L.L.C.; Transportation Alliance Bank, Incorporated, also known as Tab Bank; LVNV Funding, L.L.C.; Grain Technology, Incorporated; Possible Financial, Incorporated; United States Department of Education; John Does, 1-10; Skopos Financial, L.L.C., doing business as Reprise Financial; Maximus Education, L.L.C., doing business as Aidvantage, Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 6:25-CV-1145 ______________________________ Case: 26-30009 Document: 158-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/06/2026 Before Elrod, Chief Judge, and Wilson and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Devonte Francis, proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of his suit for failure to state a claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). This court reviews such dismissals de novo. See McKay v. LaCroix, 117 F.4th 741, 746 (5th Cir. 2024). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court determined that Francis’s claims were implausible. Francis does not show otherwise but instead raises several legal and procedural points. Even with the liberal construction given to pro se filings, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), Francis’s arguments, which include fictitious caselaw citations, are not even arguable on their merit. See Lyons v. Sheetz, 834 F.2d 493, 496 (5th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, Francis’s appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Francis’s motion for judicial notice is DENIED. Francis is warned that any future frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction may subject him to sanctions. See Coghlan v. Starkey, 852 F.2d 806, 817 n.21 (5th Cir. 1988). * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.