Ismail v. Albany City School District et al

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________
SALIM S ISMAIL,
Plaintiff,
-v- 	1:26-CV-297 (AJB/DJS)
ALBANY CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
SALIM S ISMAIL
Plaintiff, Pro Se
154 2nd Street
Albany, NY 12210
Hon. Anthony Brindisi, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
On February 23, 2026, pro se plaintiff Salim S Ismail (“plaintiff”) filed this 42 U.S.C. §
1983 action seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the “FBI policy” of the Albany City School
District and Albany Police Department—that is, these entities’ policy and practice of “crying wolf
to the APD, FBI, ATF&E, DEA, US Marshalls, CBP, HSI, ICE, Secret Service, Federal Protective
Service, DSS, IRS, CGIS, NCIS, Army CID, and any other law enforcement agencies within their
‘partnerships’ by painting, framing, and labelling people that fight back against them and their
treacherous ways as terrorists”—is unconstitutional. See Dkt. No. 1 (errors in original). Along
with his complaint, plaintiff moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”),
Dkt. No. 2, and filed a letter motion seeking “to recuse the Judges of this Court from touching this
case,” Dkt. No. 3.
Case 1:26-cv-00297-AJB-DJS Document 14 Filed 05/08/26 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
On April 2, 2026, U.S. Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart conducted an initial review of
the complaint and advised by Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) that the pleading be dismissed
with leave to amend. Dkt. No. 9. There, Judge Stewart explained that the precise nature of plain-
tiff’s allegations were unclear but, liberally construed, plaintiff appeared to be complaining about
events that occurred while he was a high school student in the Albany City School District. Id. In
Judge Stewart’s view, the pleading’s lack of clarity—and in particular its failure to comply with
Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—warranted dismissal but, because plaintiff
was pro se, the dismissal should be with leave to amend. Id. Judge Stewart further recommended
that plaintiff’s letter motion seeking the blanket recusal of all of the judges of this judicial district
be denied. Id.
Plaintiff has lodged objections. 	Dkt. No. 12. There, plaintiff prefaces his objections by
stating:
You can be mad. You can be mad. You can be MAD; and you may
not like it, but I stand by my complaint. 	I do. 	I really really RE-
ALLY do. I stand 10 toes down on every single last one of the things
I wrote and the things that I said.
Dkt. No. 12 at 1 (emphases and errors in original). Plaintiff goes on to complain that Judge Stew-
art’s R&R actually demonstrates why his motion for recusal is meritorious. See id. Plaintiff then
opines that:
Unfortunately, this is quickly starting to turn into another one of
those disgusting situations that I had with [U.S. District Judge]
Suddaby in my other case where I was turned a deaf ear to, not given
an explanation, terrorized with the power of the gavel, and stripped
of my 5th Amendment right to due process.
. . . .
So I’m asking you to reconsider it again and get the hell of my case.
Dkt. No. 12 at 2 (errors in original). In conclusion, plaintiff states:
Case 1:26-cv-00297-AJB-DJS Document 14 Filed 05/08/26 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
While I do plan to file an amended complaint, it is for a very differ-
ent reason than what you articulated and not going to be done so
soon.
Y’all don’t have to like it. I don’t care. I don’t care. I do not care.
FUCK OFF MY CASE. But do NOT touch my case under any cir-
cumstances whatsoever. 	Especially because this Court is a death
trap for certain litigants. That’s not what a Court is supposed to be,
but unfortunately that’s what this one is. It is not funny. That’s been
proven to be true time, time, time, time, and then AGAIN: Not only
by Ecf 91, 84, 84, 75, 63, 52, 48, 46, and 44 of my other case(1:24-
cv-983) (where it is just fucking damning and abhorrent) but also by
this report from you; and by everything that I said in my motion for
recusal.
While it would be great if my case could actually be treated for and
regarded for its merits, that is a non existent thing in this district for
pro se litigants, in totality, and for people who are not white.
It’s time to clean house and wrap up this puppet theatre façade that
you call a Court. Be mad all you want.
Dkt. No. 12 at 7 (emphases and errors in original).
Upon de novo review, Judge Stewart’s R&R is accepted and will be adopted. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C). 	Although the Court is skeptical that permitting amendment will be productive
here, the Court agrees with Judge Stewart’s approach in light of our general practice when it comes
to pro se litigants, that is, to identify the deficiencies in the initial pleading and offer an opportunity
to correct them through amendment.
That said, plaintiff’s motion for blanket recusal of all the judges in this judicial district was
and is plainly meritless, and his expletive-laden objection (filed at Dkt. No. 12) does not provide
a basis on which to conclude otherwise. Further, although plaintiff complains that he was treated
unfairly in a prior civil action that was filed in this judicial district, a review of the filings and
docket report in that action actually shows that plaintiff’s abusive litigation conduct eventually
earned him a bar order in that case. 	See 1:24-CV-982 (GTS/PJE) at Dkt. No. 91. 	Plaintiff is
Case 1:26-cv-00297-AJB-DJS Document 14 Filed 05/08/26 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
cautioned that abusive litigation tactics will not be tolerated in this action, either. Indeed, the IFP
statute requires a court to dismiss a case “at any time” if it determines that the action is (i) frivolous
or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. The Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 9) is ACCEPTED;
2. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 10) is DENIED as
moot because he has already been granted IFP status (at Dkt. No. 8);
3. Plaintiff shall have THIRTY DAYS in which to file an amended complaint that con-
forms with the instructions set forth in Judge Stewart’s R&R;
4. If plaintiff timely files an amended complaint, the Clerk is directed to REFER the file
to Judge Stewart for further action as appropriate; and
5. If plaintiff does not timely file an amended complaint, the Clerk is directed to enter a
judgment dismissing this action and close the file without further Order of the Court.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motions and set a deadline
accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 8, 2026
Utica, New York.
Case 1:26-cv-00297-AJB-DJS Document 14 Filed 05/08/26 Page 4 of 4