Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-01163/USCOURTS-ca7-15-01163-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Trazell Delonte
Appellant
Duncan Solutions, Inc
Appellee
Professional Account Management, LLC.
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Submitted March 30, 2015*

Decided March 31, 2015 

Before 

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge 

RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

No. 15-1163 

TRAZELL DELONTE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

DUNCAN SOLUTIONS, INC., and 

PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT 

MANAGEMENT, LLC., 

 Defendants-Appellees.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of 

Wisconsin. 

No. 14-C-1587 

Rudolph T. Randa, 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

In December 2014, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, Trazell Delonte filed a 

two-paragraph complaint alleging generally that two corporations, Professional 

Account Management and Duncan Solutions, violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices 

Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692–1692p, when they attempted to collect a debt from him. The 

 

*

 The defendants were not served with process in the district court and are not 

participating in this appeal. After examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we 

have concluded that the case is appropriate for summary disposition. See FED. R. APP. P. 

34(a)(2). 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 

Case: 15-1163 Document: 9 Filed: 03/31/2015 Pages: 2
No. 15-1163 Page 2 

district court screened the complaint, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and dismissed it with 

prejudice for failure to state a claim because it lacked any factual allegations that might 

put the defendants on notice of the claims against them. 

On appeal Delonte elaborates on his original allegations, see Lavalais v. Vill. of 

Melrose Park, 734 F.3d 629, 633 (7th Cir. 2013), and states that Professional Account 

Management sent him a misleading dunning letter in May 2013 in its attempt to collect 

on unpaid traffic tickets. He argues that Professional Account Management’s statement 

that it “is representing the District of Columbia Government” in the collection of the 

debt violates 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(1), which prohibits a debt collector from falsely 

representing that it is affiliated with a government entity. He also asserts that the use of 

the term “ONPROF40” in one of the return addresses on the payment stub attached to 

the letter violates § 1692e(14), which prohibits a debt collector from using any business 

name that is not the “true name of the debt collector’s business” in its collection 

attempts. Finally Delonte informs us that the defendants did not respond to a letter he 

sent them in November 2014. 

When screening a complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), a district court should typically grant a pro se plaintiff leave to amend 

before dismissing with prejudice. See Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014, 

1024–25 (7th Cir. 2013). But Delonte’s brief on appeal demonstrates that amending his 

complaint would be futile. See id. at 1024 & n.4. Private actions under the Fair Debt 

Collections Practices Act must be brought within one year of the date of the violation, 

see 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d); Ruth v. Unifund CCR Partners, 604 F.3d 908, 910 (6th Cir. 2010), 

and Delonte stated in his brief that he received the allegedly misleading letter nineteen 

months before he filed his complaint. And the defendants’ failure to respond to a letter 

he sent them—eighteen months after he received a debt collection letter from one of 

them—does not state a claim under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. 

AFFIRMED

Case: 15-1163 Document: 9 Filed: 03/31/2015 Pages: 2