Doane v. Doe et al

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________
MICHAEL LEE DOANE,
Plaintiff,
-v- 	9:25-CV-516 (DNH/MJK)
KING et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
MICHAEL LEE DOANE
Plaintiff, Pro Se
24-B-1292
Clinton Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 2001
Dannemora, NY 12929
HON. LETITIA JAMES 	ALEXANDRA L. GALUS, ESQ.
New York State Attorney General 	Assistant Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
Hon. David N. Hurd, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
On April 28, 2025, pro se plaintiff Michael Lee Doane (“plaintiff”) filed this 42 U.S.C. §
1983 action alleging that John and Joe Doe officials violated his civil rights while he was confined
at Clinton Correctional Facility. See Dkt. No. 1. Along with his complaint, plaintiff moved for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”). Dkt. Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7.
On June 27, 2025, this Court granted plaintiff’s IFP Application and conditionally dis-
missed plaintiff’s pleading with an opportunity to amend. Dkt. No. 9. As the Court explained at
Case 9:25-cv-00516-DNH-MJK Document 28 Filed 04/29/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
the time, plaintiff had failed to plausibly allege the “personal involvement” of any of the Doe
defendants. 	See id. 	Thereafter, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, Dkt. No. 11, which this
Court accepted for filing to the extent that it stated certain § 1983 Eighth Amendment claims
against the Does, Dkt. No. 12. The Court directed service on defendant King for the limited pur-
pose of facilitating fact discovery. See id..
King answered the pleading. Dkt. No. 19. But on December 11, 2025, defendant’s counsel
filed a suggestion of death advising the Court that plaintiff had died on or about October 30, 2025.
Dkt. No. 22. Defendant’s counsel further sought a stay of pre-trial deadlines pending a determi-
nation of whether a motion for substitution might be forthcoming. Dkt. No. 23.
On December 17, 2025, U.S. Magistrate Judge Mitchell J. Katz reviewed the filings and
entered a text order staying the relevant deadlines. Dkt. No. 24. At that time, Judge Katz explained
that a motion for substitution must be made within ninety days or this action would be subject to
dismissal. 	Id. 	That text order was mailed to plaintiff’s last known address but returned to the
Court as undeliverable. Dkt. No. 25.
On April 8, 2026, after the relevant deadlines expired, Judge Katz advised by Report &
Recommendation (“R&R”) that plaintiff’s amended complaint be dismissed without prejudice.
Dkt. No. 26. 	As Judge Katz explained, plaintiff’s § 1983 action could theoretically proceed
through an appropriate representative of his estate (such as a plaintiff-executor), but that absent a
timely motion to substitute a new plaintiff, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure required the action
to be dismissed. See id.
Neither party has lodged objections, and the time period in which to do so has expired. See
Dkt. No. 26. The R&R was mailed to plaintiff’s last known address but has again been returned
Case 9:25-cv-00516-DNH-MJK Document 28 Filed 04/29/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
as undeliverable. 	Dkt. No. 27. 	Upon review for clear error, the R&R is accepted and will be
adopted. See FED. R. C IV. P. 72(b).
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. The Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 26) is ACCEPTED; and
2. Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Dkt. No. 11) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motion, enter a judgment ac-
cordingly, and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 29, 2026
Utica, New York.
Case 9:25-cv-00516-DNH-MJK Document 28 Filed 04/29/26 Page 3 of 3