Pinkston v. Advanced Financial Services, 1:24-cv-00190

Plaintiff Princess Amber Pinkston alleges her 2016 Mitsubishi Outlander was taken by Advanced Financial Services, acting on the order of MVTRAC, LLC, a repossession company.
Pinkston claims she is the original and rightful owner, has no contract with Defendants, and Defendants have no security interest in the vehicle.
Defendants have refused to disclose the location of the vehicle.
Plaintiff asserts violations of the Fourth Amendment, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2312 & 2313 (relating to stolen vehicles), 42 U.S.C. § 2310, and various Delaware state laws.
The court is screening the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) after granting Pinkston in forma pauperis status.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
FDCPA Claim	Defendants improperly took car	Not debt collectors, no FDCPA violation alleged	Dismissed with leave to amend; insufficient facts for FDCPA
Fourth Amendment Claim	Defendants acted unlawfully	Not government actors	Dismissed; Defendants not state actors
Federal Criminal Statutes	Taking violated federal law	No private right of action	Dismissed; statutes do not confer civil remedy
State Law Claims	Car repossession unlawful	—	Dismissed without prejudice; no federal jurisdiction shown

Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008) (court must accept complaint's facts as true and review in light favorable to pro se plaintiffs)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (liberal construction required for pro se complaints)
Connelly v. Lane Constr. Corp., 809 F.3d 780 (3d Cir. 2016) (complaints must contain sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim)
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading under federal rules)
Ball v. Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448 (3d Cir. 2013) (standards for dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B))