Georgie Anufriev v. First Technology Federal Credit Union, Pro Found Recovery Solutions, and Oregon Adjusters Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Oregon dismissed with prejudice Georgie Anufriev’s constitutional claims arising from the repossession of a 2019 Chevrolet Silverado. The court held that the private defendants were not proper defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens because they were not acting under color of state or federal law. The court also denied Anufriev’s motion for a temporary restraining order because he had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits.

Holdings

1. The complaint failed to state a constitutional claim because the named defendants were private actors and the plaintiff did not identify a defendant acting under color of state law or a viable Bivens defendant.
2. The complaint was properly dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because it failed to state a claim, and dismissal was with prejudice because amendment would be futile.
3. The temporary restraining order was denied because the plaintiff could not establish a likelihood of success on the merits.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a viable constitutional claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens against the private defendants.
2. Whether the complaint should be dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a temporary restraining order preventing the proposed sale of the vehicle.

Disposition

dismissed