Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
James Keefer sued U.S. Bank National Association in the Southern District of California under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The complaint alleges that Keefer kept a consumer checking account with the bank and that, after he closed it, the bank and its automated collection agents began placing persistent, daily collection calls to his private cellular telephone. According to the complaint, when he answered he routinely heard a mechanical pause, a clicking sound, and an automated voice before a live collection representative came on the line, and he alleges the bank placed a very large volume of such calls. These are allegations, not findings, and the order resolves no disputed fact.
Keefer's first application to proceed in forma pauperis was denied without prejudice because he had not stated the amount of wages or gross pay he receives or the amount of the SSI benefits he reported. He then filed a second application. Separately, on September 28, 2026, U.S. Bank moved to compel arbitration, and Keefer moved to strike that filing. Because Keefer sought fee-free status, the court also had to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), applying the Rule 12(b)(6) standard read together with Rule 8.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the second application, stating that it is complete and establishes the requisite financial need under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). It then screened the complaint. Drawing on Howard v. Republican National Committee, 164 F.4th 1119 (9th Cir. 2026), it stated that a claim under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) requires allegations that the defendant made a call, to a number assigned to a cellular telephone service, using an artificial or prerecorded voice, and that the statute concerns the manner in which a call is begun. After summarizing Keefer's allegations, the court concluded that the complaint contains sufficient allegations to survive screening. The order gives no extended element-by-element analysis and does not decide whether the claim will succeed.
The court directed the Clerk to issue a summons and ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the complaint, with costs advanced by the United States. It ordered the defendant, once served, to respond within the time allowed by Rules 12(a) and 15(a)(3). On the pending motions, it set a schedule. Keefer's opposition to the motion to compel arbitration is due November 9, 2026, with U.S. Bank's reply due November 16. U.S. Bank's opposition to the motion to strike is due November 9, with Keefer's reply due November 16. No oral argument will be heard unless the court orders otherwise. The court did not rule on either motion.
Key Takeaways
- A first in forma pauperis application denied without prejudice for missing wage and benefit amounts can be renewed, and here the court found the second application complete and granted it.
- Fee-free status does not end the court's gatekeeping, because the complaint must still be screened under § 1915(e)(2)(B) using the Rule 12(b)(6) standard, and that screening applies to non-prisoner plaintiffs as well.
- Passing screening means only that the allegations are sufficient at the pleading stage; it is not a finding that U.S. Bank made the calls or used an artificial or prerecorded voice, so the merits remain open.
- The motion to compel arbitration and the motion to strike remain undecided, and the arbitration ruling could determine whether the claims are litigated in this court.
- The Marshals Service will serve the complaint at government expense, and Keefer must serve later filings on the defendant with a certificate of service.
Why It Matters
This is a routine district court order that is not designated as reported and carries no precedential weight. It does show how a Ninth Circuit district court describes the artificial-or-prerecorded-voice element, relying on the 2026 Howard decision, when screening a TCPA complaint. The order also notes in a footnote that the exception for calls made solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States was held unconstitutional and severed in Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants.
Practically, the order moves the case forward. The defendant must respond once served, and the arbitration dispute will be briefed in November 2026. Whether the calls actually used an artificial or prerecorded voice, and whether the dispute belongs in arbitration, are questions the order leaves for later.