Clark et al v. Hall et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
____________________________________________
BRIAN ANDREW CLARK, DONALD
LEONARD CLARK, and CRYSTAL MABB,
Plaintiffs,
vs. 	1:24-CV-1150
(MAD/PJE)
JOHN HALL, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________________
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
BRIAN ANDREW CLARK
Washington County Jail
399 Broadway
Fort Edward, New York
Plaintiff, pro se
DONALD LEONARD CLARK
Comstock, New York
Plaintiff, pro se
CRYSTAL MABB
Fort Edward, New York
Plaintiff, pro se
Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER
On June 19, 2024, Plaintiffs Brian Andrew Clark, Donald Leonard Clerk, and Crystal
Mabb commenced this action, pro se, against fourteen Defendants alleging a myriad of legal
claims. See Dkt. No. 1. The complaint is signed by Plaintiff Brian Andrew Clark. See id.
Plaintiff Donald Leonard Clark submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"),
which is not signed. See Dkt. No. 2. Plaintiff Brian Andrew Clark also submitted two IFP
Case 1:24-cv-01150-MAD-PJE Document 16 Filed 02/09/26 Page 1 of 6

2
applications, the first of which was unsigned. See Dkt. Nos. 4, 5, 7. He also filed a letter
requesting the appointment of counsel. See Dkt. No. 11. 	On March 6, 2025, Plaintiff Brian
Andrew Clark filed a 70-page Amended Complaint adding numerous Plaintiffs, Defendants, and
purported claims. See Dkt. No. 13.
On July 30, 2025, Magistrate Judge Paul J. Evangelista issued a Report-Recommendation
and Order granting Plaintiff Brian Andrew Clark's IFP motion, denying his request for counsel,
and recommending that the amended complaint be dismissed. See Dkt. No. 14. The Court's
docket indicates that the Report-Recommendation and Order was sent to "Pro Se Plaintiffs via
regular mail." Id. The copy served on Plaintiff Brian Andrew Clark at Washington County Jail
was returned as undeliverable on August 11, 2025. See Dkt. No. 15. The Court has not received
any other filings in this matter. As such, Plaintiffs have not filed any objections to the Report-
Recommendation and Order.
When a party declines to file objections to a magistrate judge's report-recommendation,
the district court reviews the report-recommendation for clear error. See Hamilton v. Colvin, 8 F.
Supp. 3d 232, 236 (N.D.N.Y. 2013). After the appropriate review, "the court may accept, reject,
or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge."
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
"[I]n a pro se case, the court must view the submissions by a more lenient standard than
that accorded to 'formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'" Govan v. Campbell, 289 F. Supp. 2d 289,
295 (N.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)) (other citations
omitted). The Second Circuit has stated that the court is obligated to "make reasonable
allowances to protect pro se litigants" from inadvertently forfeiting legal rights merely "because
of their lack of legal training." Id. (quoting Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983)).
Case 1:24-cv-01150-MAD-PJE Document 16 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 6

3
As an initial matter, the return of the Report-Recommendation and Order served on
Plaintiff Brian Andrew Clark as undeliverable does not negate the Court's ability to review the
Report-Recommendation and Order and dismiss the amended complaint. Local Rule 10.1(c)(2)
mandates that "pro se litigants must immediately notify the Court of any change of address and/or
telephone number." N.D.N.Y. L.R. 10.1(c)(2) (emphasis omitted). Plaintiffs were also advised in
October of 2024 "that, in accordance with the Rule 10.1(c)(2) of the Court's Local Rules, plaintiff
shall promptly notify the Clerk's Office and all parties or their counsel, in writing, of any change
in Plaintiffs address. Plaintiff's failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action." Dkt.
No. 3. "[R]egardless of whether Plaintiff[s] actually received notice that delay could result in
dismissal, it remained [their] duty to diligently pursue [the] case and to inform this Court[ ] . . . of
any change of address." Swinea v. Peters, No. 1:24-CV-1517, 2025 WL 1819710, *2 (N.D.N.Y.
July 2, 2025) (quoting Moloney v. West, No. 1:24-CV-685, 2025 WL 828206, *2 (N.D.N.Y. Mar.
17, 2025) (additional quotation and quotation mark omitted). "A plaintiff's pro se status does not
exempt a party from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law." Id.
(quoting Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 477 (2d Cir. 2006) (additional
quotation and quotation marks omitted).
The Report-Recommendation and Order has been pending since July 30, 2025, and
Plaintiffs have not filed anything with the Court in that time—a change of address or otherwise.
Therefore, the Court will review the Report-Recommendation and Order for only clear error.
Having reviewed the Report-Recommendation and Order, the complaint and amended
complaint, and the applicable law, the Court does not discern any clear error in Magistrate Judge
Evangelista's recommendation to dismiss the amended complaint.
Case 1:24-cv-01150-MAD-PJE Document 16 Filed 02/09/26 Page 3 of 6

4
Magistrate Judge Evangelista correctly concluded that Plaintiffs failed to comply with
Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Dkt. No. 14 at 5-7. "[A] plaintiff's
obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do[.]" Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286
(1986)). Likewise, although "Rule 10 is . . . subject to the command 'never to exalt form over
substance,'" Shariff v. United States, 689 Fed. Appx. 18 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting Phillips v.
Girdich, 408 F.3d 124, 128 (2d Cir. 2005)), "'[t]he purpose of Rule 10(a) is to provide 'clear
notice as to the parties in an action.'" City of Syracuse v. Loomis Armored US, LLC, No. 5:11-
CV-00744, 2011 WL 6318370, *3 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2011) (quoting E.E. O.C. v. Int'l Ass'n of
Bridge, Structural, & Ornamental Ironworkers, Local 580, 139 F. Supp. 2d 512, 525 (S.D.N.Y.
2001)).
As thoroughly discussed by Magistrate Judge Evangelista, Plaintiffs' amended complaint
does not provide any cognizable grounds for relief nor clear notice as to the causes of action.1
Affording the pro se Plaintiffs appropriate leniency, Magistrate Judge Evangelista analyzed
various claims that could be extrapolated from the amended complaint including claims against
judges and prosecutors; claims relating to criminal convictions, family court decisions, and
conduct by various counties and their employees; and claims of fraud, broad conspiracies, and
medical malpractice. See Dkt. No. 14 at 21-28. He appropriately concluded that (1) many of the
named Defendants are immune from suit in their roles as judges or prosecutors; (2) Plaintiffs are
likely barred from moving in this Court to overturn a state court conviction; (3) they failed to
1 Magistrate Judge Evangelita quoted numerous paragraphs, statements, and phrases from
Plaintiffs' amended complaint and the Court will not do so again, here. See Dkt. No. 14 at 10-13.
Case 1:24-cv-01150-MAD-PJE Document 16 Filed 02/09/26 Page 4 of 6

5
allege an unconstitutional municipal policy, custom, or practice; (4) Plaintiffs cannot challenge
family court orders in this Court; and (5) the amended complaint lacks sufficient facts to bring a
conspiracy, fraud, or medical malpractice claim. See id.
The Court finds no clear error in those conclusions. The Court also agrees with
Magistrate Judge Evangelista's determinations that Plaintiffs cannot sue private parties under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged constitutional violations and that Plaintiff Brian Andrew Clark cannot
file any claims on behalf of the other pro se Plaintiffs. See id. at 14, 25.
As explained by Magistrate Judge Evangelista, not all named Plaintiffs signed the
complaints or submitted IFP applications. See id. at 14. He recommended that Plaintiffs Donald
Leonard Clark and Crystal Mabb be terminated from the docket because "the amended complaint
alleges no cognizable claims on their behalf, they have not signed the amended complaint, and it
appears that plaintiff Brian Andrew Clark is attempting to bring claims on their behalf[.]" Id. at
32. "By statute, parties appearing in a federal court may 'plead and conduct their own cases
personally or by counsel.'" Williams v. Norris, No. 1:18-CV-349, 2018 WL 3121608, *2
(N.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2018), R. & R. adopted, 2018 WL 2298351 (N.D.N.Y. May 21, 2018)
(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1654) (emphasis added). A pro se plaintiff "cannot bring an action on
behalf of another pro se plaintiff." Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a)). Accordingly, the Court finds
no clear error in Magistrate Judge Evangelista's conclusion that Plaintiff Brian Andrew Clark
cannot bring claims on behalf of the other two named pro se Plaintiffs. At this juncture, however,
the Court will not terminate any parties. Rather, for the reasons explained in the Report-
Recommendation and Order, and this Order, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff Brian Andrew Clark's
entire amended complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend.
Case 1:24-cv-01150-MAD-PJE Document 16 Filed 02/09/26 Page 5 of 6

6
Finally, Magistrate Judge Evangelista discussed Plaintiff Brian Andrew Clark's repeated
references to a case he previously filed in this Court: Clark v. Tanner, et al., No. 1:22-CV-1264
(N.D.N.Y). See Dkt. No. 14 at 9. Magistrate Judge Evangelista correctly stated that the 2022
case has been closed since 2024, and Plaintiff cannot use this new case to relitigate a previous
action. See id. at 15, 32.
Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Evangelista's Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt.
No. 14) is ADOPTED in its entirety for the reasons set forth herein; and the Court further
ORDERS that the amended complaint (Dkt. No. 13) is DISMISSED without prejudice
and with leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order;2
and the Court further
ORDERS that, if Plaintiff Brian Andrew fail to file an amended complaint within thirty
(30) days of this Order, the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in Defendants' favor and close
this case, without further order of this Court;3 and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiffs in
accordance with Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 9, 2026
Albany, New York
2 This ruling does not permit Plaintiff Brian Andrew Clark to seek to consolidate, reopen, or
reargue the case or claims from Clark v. Tanner, et al., No. 1:22-CV-1264 (N.D.N.Y.).
3 The Court will only consider claims from Plaintiffs Donald Leonard Clark and Crystal Mabb if
they too follow the rules of this Court and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as the
explanations provided by Magistrate Judge Evangalista and this Court.
Case 1:24-cv-01150-MAD-PJE Document 16 Filed 02/09/26 Page 6 of 6