Chance v. Selip & Stylianou, LLP

Background

Tyvaris S. Chance, who was representing himself, brought a case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), a federal law regulating debt-collection practices. He alleged that Selip & Stylianou, LLP, a debt collector, sent him a December 8, 2021 letter about a $4,448.16 debt allegedly owed to Citibank, N.A. The letter explained how to dispute the debt and stated that the firm had been authorized to seek a state-court remedy if payment was not received.

Chance wrote that he refused to pay the alleged debt and later claimed that Selip’s January 27, 2022 letter used abusive language, falsely suggested it came from an attorney, and threatened state-court action. He alleged that he suffered severe emotional distress. His filings also referred to several provisions of the FDCPA, a federal criminal identity-theft statute, the Fourth Amendment, and the Truth in Lending Act, but generally did not provide facts explaining how those laws were violated.

Court’s analysis

Because Chance had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the court screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court explained that it must dismiss a fee-waived complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, seeks relief from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s jurisdiction. Self-represented pleadings are read liberally, but they still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.

The court treated the alleged threat of a state-court lawsuit as the main FDCPA claim. It held that a letter notifying a person of a possible civil lawsuit over an unpaid debt does not, by itself, violate the FDCPA’s ban on conduct whose natural consequence is harassment, oppression, or abuse. The letter did not use obscene or profane language, threaten violence or public humiliation, or involve repetitive communications. The court also found that the exhibits’ citations to other FDCPA provisions were unsupported by facts showing a violation.

The court further held that the identity-theft criminal statute does not provide a private right to sue. The Fourth Amendment claim could not proceed against Selip because Selip was a private actor, while the Constitution regulates government conduct. The Truth in Lending Act allegations also failed because Chance did not identify conduct violating that statute, and any claim concerning Citibank’s extension of credit could not be brought against Selip, the only named defendant.

Disposition

The court granted Chance leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and must provide facts identifying the relevant people, events, dates, locations, injuries, and requested relief. The court stated that if Chance did not comply and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. No summons would issue at that time.

The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Chance permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.