Fields v. Doe et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
THOMAS FIELDS,
Plaintiff,
v.
JANE DOE, Sergeant, Coxsackie Correctional
Facility, et al.,
Defendants.
9:24-CV-1292
(MAD/DJS)
APPEARANCES:
THOMAS FIELDS
Plaintiff, pro se
10-A-2057
Elmira Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 500
Elmira, NY 14902
MAE A. D'AGOSTINO
United States District Judge
OF COUNSEL:
DECISION AND ORDER
I. 	INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 22, 2024, pro se plaintiff Thomas Fields ("plaintiff") filed a complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983") asserting claims arising out of his confinement
in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision
("DOCCS"). Dkt. No. 1 ("Compl."). With the complaint, plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in
forma pauperis ("IFP"). Dkt. No. 2.
In a Decision and Order filed on November 15, 2024 (the "November 2024 Order"),
the Court granted plaintiff's IFP application and reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Case 9:24-cv-01292-MAD-DJS Document 21 Filed 11/18/25 Page 1 of 7

2
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Dkt. No. 5. The Court dismissed plaintiff's
complaint for failure to state a claim. Id. In light of plaintiff's pro se status, the Court provided
plaintiff with an opportunity to amend his complaint. Id. Plaintiff was advised that, if he failed
to submit an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the filing date of the November
2024 Order, the Court would, without further order, enter judgment dismissing the action
without prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted pursuant to
Sections 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1). Id.
On February 11, 2025, after plaintiff failed to contact the Court or comply with the
November 2024 Order, judgment was issued. Dkt. No. 7.
On February 27, 2025, plaintiff provided a Notice of Change of Address indicating he
was transferred from Marcy Correctional Facility to Elmira Correctional Facility (Dkt. No. 8)
and a letter motion to vacate the November 2024 Order and extend his time to comply with
the November 2024 Order (Dkt. No. 9). In a Decision and Order filed on March 19, 2025 (the
"March 2025 Order"), the Court granted plaintiff's motion to vacate and directed plaintiff to
respond to the November 2024 Order within sixty days. Dkt. No. 10.
On March 28, 2025, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 11. In a Decision
and Order filed on April 15, 2025 (the "April 2025 Order"), the Court accepted the amended
complaint and found that the Eighth Amendment claims against Sgt. Doe, C.O. Doe #1, C.O.
Doe #2, Nurse Doe #1, and Nurse Doe #2 survived review. Dkt. No. 12. 	The Court directed
the Clerk to send a copy of the amended complaint and April 2025 Order to the Office of the
Attorney General. Id. The Court directed the Attorney General to attempt to ascertain the full
names of the defendants and to provide the addresses where the defendants could be
served. Id.
Case 9:24-cv-01292-MAD-DJS Document 21 Filed 11/18/25 Page 2 of 7

3
On July 22, 2025, the Attorney General’s Office provided a response to the April 2025
Order. Dkt. No. 17. The Assistant Attorney General stated that "there were no female
sergeants on duty at the time plaintiff was escorted from the RMHU to the medical building."
Id. Counsel further asserted, "the undersigned is unable to determine the identity of the
correction officers who escorted plaintiff on April 19, 2024." Id. However, after a review of
relevant medical records, the Attorney General identified one of the nurses who treated
plaintiff as "D. Dawson" and provided an address where Dawson could be served. Id.
In a Decision and Order filed on August 12, 2025 (the "August 2025 Order'), the Court
directed plaintiff to file a second amended complaint correctly identifying a Nurse/Doe
defendant based upon the information provided by the Attorney General. Dkt. No. 19.
Presently before the Court is plaintiff's second amended complaint. Dkt. No. 20.
II. 	SUFFICIENCY OF AMENDED COMPLAINT
A. Legal Standard
The legal standard governing the dismissal of a pleading for failure to state a claim
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A was discussed at length in the
November 2024 Order and will not be restated in this Decision and Order. See Dkt. No. 5 at
2-4.
B. Summary of Second Amended Complaint1
1 The Court notes that the amended complaint included exhibits (Dkt. No. 11), that plaintiff failed to annex to
the second amended complaint. "Although it is well settled that an amended complaint supersedes a prior
complaint in its entirety, it is clear to the court that plaintiff intended to attach the exhibits to his amended
complaint." Wellington v. Langendorf, No. 12-CV-1019, 2013 WL 3753978, at *3 n.2 (N.D.N.Y. July 15, 2013).
To require plaintiff to file another amended complaint that includes the original exhibits is "an unnecessary
procedural hoop that would waste resources and delay resolution of this action" Alexander v. United States, No.
13-CV-678, 2013 WL 4014539, at *4 n.3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2013). In light of plaintiff's pro se status, the Court
will consider the exhibits and documentation attached to the amended complaint as incorporated by reference in
the second amended complaint. See Alvarado v. Ramineni, No. 08-CV-1126, 2011 WL 6937477, at *5 n.9
(N.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2011).
Case 9:24-cv-01292-MAD-DJS Document 21 Filed 11/18/25 Page 3 of 7

4
With the second amended complaint, plaintiff substitutes Nurse D. Dawson ("Dawson")
for Nurse Jane Doe #1.2 See Sec. Am. Compl. at 1. The allegations in the second amended
complaint are substantially similar to the allegations set forth in the amended complaint.
On April 19, 2024, between 3:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m., plaintiff was in the RMHU and
reported to an officer that he could not breath and needed medical assistance. Sec. Am.
Compl. at 5.
Approximately twenty minutes later, defendants Correctional Officers John Doe #1
("C.O. Doe #1") and John Doe #2 ("C.O. Doe #2") arrived at plaintiff's cell with defendant
Sergeant Jane Doe ("Sgt. Jane Doe") to escort plaintiff to the medical unit. Sec. Am. Compl.
at 5. Plaintiff told defendants that he could not breathe. Id. Rather than transporting plaintiff
via stretcher or wheelchair, the officers directed plaintiff to walk. Id. Plaintiff "kept stopping
and holding onto the wall" and told defendants that he could not walk while defendants
"mocked and verbally insulted" plaintiff. Id.
When plaintiff arrived at the medical unit, defendants Dawson and Nurse Jane Doe #2
"engaged" in a conversation with Sgt. Jane Doe and the officers, rather than "attending
immediately" to plaintiff's needs. Sec. Am. Compl. at 6. A doctor entered the room and
treated plaintiff. Id. When plaintiff's condition improved, the doctor departed. Id.
Sgt. Jane Doe, C.O. Doe #1, and C.O. Doe #2 ordered defendant to "get up." Sec.
Am. Compl. at 7. Plaintiff tried and almost fell on the floor. Id. A nurse told plaintiff he was
"faking" and directed defendants to send him "upstairs to the medical room." Id. Plaintiff was
"forcefully" placed in a wheelchair with his feet "dragged underneath the wheelchair." Id.
2 The Clerk of the Court is directed to substitute Dawson for Nurse Jane Doe #1.
Case 9:24-cv-01292-MAD-DJS Document 21 Filed 11/18/25 Page 4 of 7

5
Plaintiff was wheeled to the "upstairs medical infirmary." Am. Compl. at 18. The
officers removed the bedframe and plaintiff was "thrown on the floor on top of a single
mattress." Id.
The next morning, plaintiff notified the Office of Special Investigation ("OSI") and filed a
grievance. Sec. Am. Compl. at 7.
On April 21, 2025, plaintiff was escorted to the medical department. Sec. Am. Compl.
at 7. Id. When plaintiff arrived, the doctor who treated him and the "nurses who mistreated"
him apologized and explained his condition "in full." Id. at 8.
Construing the second amended complaint liberally3, plaintiff asserts Eighth
Amendment deliberate medical indifference claims. See Sec. Am. Compl. at 12. Plaintiff
seeks compensatory damages. See id. at 13. For a complete statement of plaintiff's claims
and the facts he relies on in support of those claims, reference is made to the second
amended complaint.
C. Analysis
The law related to Eighth Amendment deliberate medical indifference claims was set
forth in the November 2024 Order, and will not be restated herein. See Dkt. No. 5 at 7-9.
For the reasons set forth in the April 2025 Order, plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims
against Sgt. Doe, C.O. Doe #1, C.O. Doe #2, Dawson, and Nurse Doe #2 survive sua sponte
3 The Court is mindful of the Second Circuit's instruction that a pleading by a pro se litigant must be construed
liberally and interpreted to raise the strongest arguments that it suggests. See, e.g., Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed
Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 191 (2d Cir. 2008) ("On occasions too numerous to count, we have reminded district
courts" that a pro se plaintiff's pleadings must be construed liberally); Phillips v. Girdich, 408 F.3d 124, 130 (2d
Cir. 2005) ("We leave it for the district court to determine what other claims, if any, [plaintiff] has raised. In so
doing, the court's imagination should be limited only by [plaintiff's] factual allegations, not by the legal claims set
out in his pleadings."); Burgos v. Hopkins, 14 F.3d 787, 790 (2d Cir. 1994) ("[W]e read [a pro se litigant's]
supporting papers liberally, and will interpret them to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.").
Case 9:24-cv-01292-MAD-DJS Document 21 Filed 11/18/25 Page 5 of 7

6
review and require a response. In so ruling, the Court expresses no opinion as to whether
these claims can withstand a properly filed dispositive motion.
III. 	CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, it is hereby
ORDERED that the second amended complaint (Dkt. No. 20) is ACCEPTED for filing
and is the operative pleading in this action; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall substitute Dawson for Nurse Jane Doe #1;
and it is further
ORDERED that the Eighth Amendment deliberate medical indifference claims against
Sgt. Doe, C.O. Doe #1, C.O. Doe #2, Dawson, and Nurse Doe #2 survive the Court's sua
sponte review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and require a
response; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue a summons and forward it, along with copies of
the second amended complaint, to the United States Marshal for service upon the defendant.
The Clerk shall forward a copy of the summons and amended complaint to the Office of the
Attorney General, together with a copy of this Decision and Order, by electronic mail only;
and it is further
ORDERED that a response to the amended complaint be filed by the defendant, or
counsel, as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiff shall take reasonable steps through discovery to ascertain the
identity of the remaining Doe defendants. Plaintiff's failure to timely serve these defendants
will result in dismissal of the claims asserted against him/her and termination of defendant
from the action; and it is further
Case 9:24-cv-01292-MAD-DJS Document 21 Filed 11/18/25 Page 6 of 7

7
ORDERED that all pleadings, motions and other documents relating to this action
must bear the case number assigned to this action and be filed with the Clerk of the United
States District Court, Northern District of New York, 7th Floor, Federal Building, 100 S.
Clinton St., Syracuse, New York 13261-7367. Any paper sent by a party to the Court or the
Clerk must be accompanied by a certificate showing that a true and correct copy of same
was served on all opposing parties or their counsel. Any document received by the Clerk or
the Court which does not include a proper certificate of service will be stricken from the
docket. Plaintiff must comply with any requests by the Clerk’s Office for any documents that
are necessary to maintain this action. All parties must comply with Local Rule 7.1 of the
Northern District of New York in filing motions. Plaintiff is also required to promptly notify
the Clerk’s Office and all parties or their counsel, in writing, of any change in his
address; their failure to do so will result in the dismissal of his action; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Decision and Order on
plaintiff in accordance with the Local Rules of Practice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 17, 2025
Albany, New York
Case 9:24-cv-01292-MAD-DJS Document 21 Filed 11/18/25 Page 7 of 7