Thomas v. Gonzalez

United States District Court, Eastern District of New York · October 3, 2025 · No. 1:25-cv-05244

Summary

This Memorandum and Order from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York addresses a pro se civil rights complaint alleging unlawful eviction, false arrest, and property seizure by police and private actors. The court grants the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis but dismisses claims against a private defendant for failing to allege state action and declines jurisdiction over state-law landlord-tenant disputes. While the court denies emergency injunctive relief and a motion for return of property, it permits the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment false arrest claims against specific NYPD officers to proceed. The matter is referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial supervision, and an appeal certification is issued under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

Court
United States District Court, Eastern District of New York
Writing for the Court
Natasha C. Merle
Jurisdiction
United States District Court, Eastern District of New York
Decision date
October 3, 2025
Docket number
1:25-cv-05244
Procedural posture
Complaint dismissed as to private defendant Imram; false arrest claim against NYPD officers allowed to proceed; motions for preliminary injunction and return of property denied; IFP status granted.
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

section 1983civil rightsfourteenth amendmentfourth amendmentsubject matter jurisdiction

Practice areas

civil rightscivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a private individual (Imram) can be sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
  2. Whether the federal court has subject‑matter jurisdiction over the landlord‑tenant eviction claims.
  3. Whether the false arrest claim against NYPD officers may proceed under §1983.
  4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order.

Holdings

  1. The claim against Imram is dismissed because he is not a state actor and the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege color of state law.
  2. The court lacks federal question jurisdiction over the eviction claims; they are dismissed without prejudice.
  3. The false arrest claim against Officers Gonzalez, St. Fleur, and Lt. Manning may proceed.
  4. The court denies the plaintiff’s request for emergency injunctive relief.

Key quotations

Section 1983 “provides a civil claim for damages against any person who, acting under color of state law, deprives another of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States.”
A complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

Factual background

Plaintiff Cheryl A. Thomas alleges that on September 15, 2025 she was illegally removed from her LeFrak City apartment after defendants changed the locks without notice. She says NYPD officers handcuffed her and removed her belongings, including a cat, without a marshal present. She also alleges she received notice with an old case number and no real court date.

Procedural history

Plaintiff filed pro se complaint alleging illegal eviction, false arrest, and property seizure. Action transferred to E.D.N.Y. Court granted in forma pauperis, dismissed claims against private defendant Imram, dismissed landlord‑tenant claims for lack of federal jurisdiction, and permitted false arrest claim against police officers to proceed. All emergency injunctive relief was denied.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…