Drews v. GoldOller Real Estate Investments
1:24-cv-06697
| S.D.N.Y. | Jul 28, 2025Background
- Wendy Marie Drews (pro se) sued several apartment building owners/managers and the property manager, alleging various federal and state law violations after an incident where her minor son was removed from her apartment by police and ACS (child services) employees.
- Drews claimed constitutional violations, specifically under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, after the property manager unlocked her door and facilitated police entry at the request of authorities, allegedly leading to the abduction and foster care placement of her son.
- Additional allegations included improper rent alterations, failure to refund prepaid rent, discriminatory practices by management, eviction proceedings during a protected period, credit reporting issues, and other landlord-tenant disputes.
- Drews attempted to assert claims on behalf of herself and her two children, but the children did not sign the complaint or submit the necessary filings; one child was a minor.
- The Court granted in forma pauperis status but dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), finding the federal claims insufficient and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, but granted 30 days leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Section 1983 liability for constitutional violations | Hines acted with state actors (police/ACS) to violate Drews' rights | Hines is a private party, not a state actor, and no joint action exists | No § 1983 claim; dismissal |
| Standing to assert claims for children | Drews asserted claims for her minor and adult children | Only a licensed attorney can represent minors; children did not sign complaint | Claims for children dismissed without prejudice |
| Civil claims under Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) | Drews alleged VAWA violations (as a survivor) by landlords/manager | No VAWA private civil right of action applies here; no intimate images alleged | No viable VAWA claim; dismissal |
| Claims based on federal criminal statutes (e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 1514, 2261A) | Drews sought criminal prosecution of defendants | Private citizens cannot initiate criminal prosecutions in court | Claims dismissed |
| Fair Credit Reporting Act claim | Defendants’ conduct harmed Drews’ credit | No allegation of inadequate investigation after CRA notice | FCRA claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (private actors liable under § 1983 only when acting under color of state law)
- Cheung v. Youth Orchestra Found. of Buffalo, Inc., 906 F.2d 59 (parents cannot represent children pro se in federal court)
- United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (VAWA civil remedy provision unconstitutional)
- Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471 (courts must liberally construe pro se pleadings)
- Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434 (standard for dismissing in forma pauperis complaints)