Flattmann III v. Flattmann Jr.

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________
GERALD JOSEPH FLATTMANN III,
Plaintiff,
-v- 	1:25-CV-1538 (AJB/CBF)
GERALD JOSEPH FLATTMANN, JR.,
Defendant.
_____________________________________
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
GERALD JOSEPH FLATTMANN III
Plaintiff, Pro Se
86 Freeman Avery Road
Olivebridge, NY 12461
Hon. Anthony Brindisi, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
On October 31, 2025, pro se plaintiff Gerald Joseph Flattmann III (“plaintiff”) filed this
civil action alleging that his father, defendant Gerald Joseph Flattmann, Jr., committed criminal
bank fraud when defendant took money out of plaintiff’s bank accounts. Dkt. No. 1. Along with
his complaint, plaintiff moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”). Dkt.
Nos. 2, 3. 	Thereafter, plaintiff filed an amended complaint that named the same defendant and
raised substantially the same nucleus of operative facts, i.e., that his defendant-father has taken
money out of his bank accounts. Dkt. No. 9.
On January 27, 2026, U.S. Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks granted plaintiff’s IFP
Application but, after an initial review of the amended pleading, advised by Report & Recommen-
dation (“R&R”) that plaintiff’s amended complaint be dismissed. Dkt. No. 14. As Judge Dancks
Case 1:25-cv-01538-AJB-CBF Document 17 Filed 02/17/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
explained, plaintiff had failed to validly invoke federal-court jurisdiction over this inter-family
financial dispute because, inter alia, the parties were non-diverse and a private plaintiff cannot
pursue a claim under the federal criminal law. Id.
Plaintiff has lodged objections. Dkt. No. 15. There, he explains that he wants to appeal
Judge Dancks’s decision denying his previous request to immediately have process served by the
U.S. Marshals Service. 	Id. 	According to plaintiff, he is suing defendant for “a violation of the
civil law codes” based on the allegedly unhabitable condition of the property at which he resides
in Ulster County. See id. Plaintiff claims that his “landlord is the defendant.” Id.
Upon de novo review, the R&R is accepted and will be adopted. 	See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C). 	First, Judge Dancks was entirely correct to refuse to order service until after she
conducted an initial review of the operative pleading. 	Second, Judge Dancks was also entirely
correct that a private plaintiff cannot seek relief under the federal criminal statutes. 	Third, the
parties are both alleged to be New York domiciliaries, which means that this Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over this dispute, i.e., it can be heard in state court but not federal court.
The only question is whether plaintiff should be given leave to further amend to try to
correct these errors. Judge Dancks did not take an explicit position on this question in the R&R,
though she correctly noted that plaintiff can certainly pursue his landlord-tenant dispute in a state
court of competent jurisdiction. 	After reviewing the file and considering the matter, the Court
concludes that leave to further amend would be unwarranted. Plaintiff has already amended his
pleading once. Neither this amendment nor any of the assertions he has made in his objections
give rise to any indication that there might be federal-court jurisdiction over this dispute. Plaintiff
cannot sue defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the principal federal civil rights statute, because that
body of law does not reach private plaintiffs such as his father, who is alleged to be a private
Case 1:25-cv-01538-AJB-CBF Document 17 Filed 02/17/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
attorney living and working in downstate New York. 	The only other body of federal law that
comes to mind is the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”). 	Although the FHA makes it unlawful for a
landlord to discriminate against tenants, it does not create any general right to sue a landlord for
habitability concerns, such as the frozen pipes or rodent infestation about which plaintiff has com-
plained in his filings. Absent a plausible basis for federal jurisdiction, habitability disputes and
civil fraud claims arising from disharmonious family dynamics belong in state court. 	Because
there is no indication in any of plaintiff’s filings that this lawsuit might belong in federal court,
leave to further amend will be denied.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. The Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 14) is ACCEPTED;
2. Plaintiff’s appeal of the magistrate judge decision (Dkt. No. 15) is DENIED; and
3. Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Dkt. No. 9) is DISMISSED without prejudice1 but
without leave to amend.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motions, enter a judgment ac-
cordingly, and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 17, 2026
Utica, New York.
1 Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the dismissal is necessarily without prejudice.
Case 1:25-cv-01538-AJB-CBF Document 17 Filed 02/17/26 Page 3 of 3