Drews v. Adams

Background

Wendy Drews, Roland Bristol, and E.B. brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for violations of constitutional rights by state actors. The plaintiffs appeared without lawyers and had been granted permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. They alleged that Abigail Adams, Nicholas Careswell, and Michael Corletta entered the plaintiffs’ apartment building and removed E.B., a minor child.

The complaint also named Clarke Oshom and Abigail Serwaiter. The court reviewed attachments concerning those defendants, including materials related to Rockland Community College, an alleged prior relationship involving Drews, and a New York State Family Court subpoena. The court stated that these materials did not appear to connect Oshom or Serwaiter to the incident involving Adams, Careswell, and Corletta.

Claims Against Oshom and Serwaiter

Because the plaintiffs proceeded without prepaying fees, the court was required to screen the complaint and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought relief from an immune defendant. To state a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege that each defendant was personally involved in the alleged constitutional violation. A defendant cannot be held liable merely because that defendant supervised or employed someone who allegedly violated the plaintiff’s rights.

The court found that the plaintiffs did not allege facts showing Oshom’s or Serwaiter’s personal involvement in the events at issue. It therefore dismissed the claims against Oshom and Serwaiter for failure to state a claim. The court granted the plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint stating claims against those defendants. Any amended claims had to relate to the incident involving Adams, Careswell, and Corletta. The court explained that unrelated claims would have to be brought in a new civil action.

Claims Brought on Behalf of E.B.

The court dismissed, without prejudice, any claims brought on behalf of E.B. It explained that a nonlawyer parent ordinarily cannot represent a child in federal court without a lawyer because the child is entitled to trained legal assistance. The dismissal was without prejudice, meaning the ruling did not bar a properly presented claim from being brought again.

Service on Adams, Careswell, and Corletta

The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for Adams, Careswell, and Corletta, complete the required service forms, and provide the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service. Because the plaintiffs were allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the Marshals Service would carry out service. The court stated that service had to occur within 90 days after the summonses were issued, unless the plaintiffs requested more time.

Disposition

The court dismissed the claims against Clarke Oshom and Abigail Serwaiter for failure to state a claim, with 30 days’ leave to replead those claims. It dismissed E.B.’s claims without prejudice. It directed the Clerk to terminate Oshom, Serwaiter, and E.B. from the action and to issue summonses for Adams, Careswell, and Corletta.