Opinion ID: 1213892
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Statutorily Based Claims

Text: Mangum asserts a § 1983 claim against the City based upon a claimed violation by the City of the FCRA and the FDCPA. Neither theory is viable. As the City points out, the FCRA does not even apply to the debt collection agencies, much less to the City. That is to say, it confers no rights against those agencies or the City; its strictures relate only to consumer reporting agencies. But consumer reporting agency is an appellation for those that assemble or evaluate consumer credit information, etc., for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties. 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(f). At most, debt collection agencies (and, sometimes, governmental entities) could be furnishers of information to a consumer reporting agency in certain instances, [20] but there is no claim that information was so furnished in this case. In short, this case has nothing whatsoever to do with fair credit reporting, [21] and the FCRA cannot form the basis of Mangum's § 1983 action. Similarly, while it is conceivable that a debt collector could be held responsible for releasing copies of Mangum's bad checks to the City, [22] a matter on which we express no opinion, nothing in the FDCPA purports to confer a right of action against a third party that received the information. Here, not only was the City not a debt collector, but also it was not even attempting to collect a debt. Again, there simply is no statutory basis upon which to found a claim against the City based upon the FDCPA.