Avent v. Platinum Plus Auto Protection, 1:19-cv-00831

Plaintiff Reuben Avent, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, alleges that sales agent Strain (for Platinum Plus Auto Protection) misrepresented car-insurance/loan terms in an April 10, 2019 call, inducing him to make a $395 down payment on a $4,579 contract.
PayLink Direct allegedly provided the remainder of the loan, later asserting Avent owed roughly $4,000 and pursuing collections that harmed his credit and mortgage prospects.
Avent contends defendants used fraud, misrepresentation, and unfair/deceptive practices and asserts violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1988; he seeks over $8 million and an injunction returning his down payment.
The magistrate judge screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (IFP screening) and evaluated whether the federal claims state plausible causes of action.
The court found no allegations that defendants acted under color of state law (required for § 1983) and no racial-discrimination allegations or protected-class status (required for § 1981).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Avent stated a valid § 1983 claim	Defendants’ conduct deprived him of civil rights via fraud and deceptive practices	Defendants are private actors; no state-action alleged	§ 1983 claim dismissed without prejudice; leave to amend allowed because pro se status might permit curing defects
Whether Avent stated a valid § 1981 claim	Defendants discriminated in contracting, invoking § 1981 protections	No allegations that Avent is a racial minority or that conduct was race-motivated	§ 1981 claim dismissed without prejudice; leave to amend allowed
Whether § 1988 provides an independent cause of action	Avent lists § 1988 among statutes invoked	§ 1988 is procedural and does not create an independent cause of action	§ 1988 claim dismissed with prejudice
Whether federal jurisdiction (diversity) is properly pled	Avent claims defendants are based outside NY; civil cover sheet cites federal-question jurisdiction	Complaint fails to plead corporate citizenships or the $75,000 diversity threshold	Noted as insufficient; court advised how to plead diversity if asserted in amended complaint

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions vs. factual allegations in pleading)
Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (private-party liability under § 1983 requires state action or joint activity)
United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787 (state action/joined conduct principles)
Cornejo v. Bell, 592 F.3d 121 (§ 1983 requires action under color of state law)
Brown v. City of Oneonta, New York, 221 F.3d 329 (elements required for § 1981 claim)
Branum v. Clark, 927 F.2d 698 (pro se plaintiffs should generally be given leave to amend)