Rich v. Minkler et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
GABRIEL M. RICH,
Plaintiff,
9:25-CV-1049
v. 	(GTS/DJS)
MINKLER, et al.,
Defendants.
APPEARANCES:
GABRIEL M. RICH
Plaintiff, Pro se
23-B-3674
Mohawk Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 8451
Rome, NY 13440
HON. LETITIA JAMES 	JUDSON N. KNAPPEN, ESQ.
Attorney for Defendants
NYS Office of The Attorney General
300 South State Street - Suite 300
Syracuse, NY 13202
GLENN T. SUDDABY
United States District Judge
DECISION AND ORDER
I. 	INTRODUCTION
Pro se plaintiff Gabriel M. Rich ("plaintiff") commenced this action by filing a complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983") with a request for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis ("IFP"). Dkt. No. 1 ("Compl."), Dkt. No. 7 ("IFP Application"). By Decision and Order
Case 9:25-cv-01049-GTS-DJS Document 32 Filed 05/08/26 Page 1 of 7

2
filed on October 1, 2025 (the "October 2025 Order"), this Court granted plaintiff's IFP
application and reviewed the sufficiency of the complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). See Dkt. No. 11. On the basis of that review, the
Court found that the following claims survived review and required a response: (1) First
Amendment retaliation claim against defendant Minkler; (2) Eighth Amendment excessive
force and failure-to-intervene claims against defendants Minkler, Harley, Ditch, and John/Jane
Doe #1-5; and (3) Fourteenth Amendment disciplinary due process claims against defendants
Brennan, Minkler, Wicks, and Harley. Id. at 38. Plaintiff was directed to advise the Court, in
writing within thirty days, whether he waives for all times all claims in this action relating to the
disciplinary sanctions affecting the duration of his confinement (i.e., the loss of good time) in
order to proceed with his claims challenging the sanctions affecting the conditions of his
confinement. Id. Plaintiff was also advised that, in the alternative, he may "demonstrate that
the disciplinary sentence was reversed or invalidated." Id. at 38, n. 13.
On October 20, 2025, plaintiff filed a motion for a stay further proceedings pending the
outcome of his Article 78 petition. Dkt. No. 13. In an Order filed on December 3, 2025, the
Court denied plaintiff's request without prejudice and directed plaintiff to provide the Court
with copies of his complaint for service on defendants Brennan, Minkler, Wicks, Harley, and
Ditch. Dkt. No. 14. The Court noted that, upon receipt of these documents, the Clerk shall
issue summonses and forward them, along with five copies of the complaint, to the United
States Marshal for service upon these officials. Id. Upon the completion of service,
defendants Brennan, Minkler, Wicks, Harley, and Ditch, or their counsel, shall have thirty (30)
Case 9:25-cv-01049-GTS-DJS Document 32 Filed 05/08/26 Page 2 of 7

3
days to respond to plaintiff's letter request for a stay. Id. Plaintiff complied with the Court's
directives and defendants filed an answer to the complaint. Dkt. No. 28.
In an Order filed on March 24, 2026, the Court noted,
Counsel has now appeared on behalf of the defendants and
advised that the defendants do not oppose plaintiff's request for a
stay. Dkt. No. 29 . In light of counsel's response, plaintiff's request
for a stay of this action pending a ruling from the state court on
plaintiff's Article 78 petition is conditionally granted. Plaintiff must
advise the Court, within thirty (30) days, as to the status of the
Article 78 proceeding. Provided that the action is progressing in a
timely fashion, further proceedings in this case shall be stayed
pending a ruling on the Article 78 petition.
Dkt. No. 30.
On March 27, 2026, plaintiff filed a letter request to lift the stay and to "consider his
Article 78 brief as a supplement to the complaint." Dkt. No. 31.
II. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	Motion to Lift Stay
Plaintiff claims that the underlying state court proceedings have concluded and
requests that the stay be lifted and for the action to proceed. See Dkt. No. 31. Plaintiff's
application is granted.
B. 	Motion to Amend/Supplement Complaint
Plaintiff also asks the Court to "treat my Article 78 brief" as a "supplemental or
amended complaint" or, in the alternative, for it to be considered in connection with "any
pending answer and affirmative defenses and any future pending motion to dismiss." Dkt.
No. 31 at 2. With the letter, plaintiff provided copies of the following documents: (1) March 11,
2026 letter from the New York State Attorney General (Dkt. No. 31 at 6); (2) disciplinary
Case 9:25-cv-01049-GTS-DJS Document 32 Filed 05/08/26 Page 3 of 7

4
records (Dkt. No. 31 at 7-10); and (3) a copy of plaintiff's brief in support of Article 78 petition,
with appendix (Dkt. No. 31 at 12-135). In light of plaintiff's pro se status, the Court has
construed the application as a motion to amend/supplement the complaint.
The filing of amended and supplemental pleadings is governed by Rule 15 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. Rule 15(a) states that leave to amend
shall be freely given "when justice so requires." See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182
(1962); Manson v. Stacescu, 11 F.3d 1127, 1133 (2d Cir. 1993). The Supreme Court has
stated:
In the absence of any apparent or declared reason – such as
undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant,
repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously
allowed undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of
allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc. – the
leave sought should . . . be "freely given."
Foman, 371 U.S. at 182. An amendment or supplementation of a pleading is considered a
"futile" act when the proposed claim would not withstand a motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dougherty v. Town of N. Hempstead Bd. of
Zoning Appeals, 282 F.3d 83, 88 (2d Cir. 2002). The decision to grant or deny a motion to
amend or supplement is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the court’s
decision is not subject to review on appeal except for abuse of discretion. See Fielding v.
Tollaksen, 510 F.3d 175, 179 (2d Cir. 2007).
Understanding that plaintiff is proceeding pro se and affording as much leniency as
possible, the Court is nonetheless compelled to deny plaintiff's motion for failure to comply
with the Local Rules for the Northern District of New York and Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Case 9:25-cv-01049-GTS-DJS Document 32 Filed 05/08/26 Page 4 of 7

5
The Local Rules of Practice of the Northern District of New York require that a motion
to amend or supplement be supported by a proposed pleading. N.D.N.Y.L.R. 15.1(a). Rule
15.1(a) further states that a "party shall not incorporate any portion of its prior pleading into
the proposed amended pleading by reference." Id. Rather, amended pleadings must be
complete pleadings which will supersede the original pleading in all respects. Id. "One of the
purposes of the requirement that an amended complaint be a complete pleading is to ensure
that all of the allegations asserted against the defendant(s) are contained in a single
document, thereby reducing the likelihood that a party will overlook one or more allegations
against him." See Walker v. Fischer, No. 10 CV 1431 (MAD/DEP), 2012 WL 1029614, at *10
(N.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2012) (citation omitted). "While we have insisted that the pleadings
prepared by [ pro se litigants] be liberally construed . . . we have never suggested that
procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by
those who proceed without counsel." McNeil v. U.S., 508 U.S. 106 (1993).
Plaintiff's motion is not supported by a proposed pleading in compliance with Local
Rule 15.1. Compliance with this Court's local rules is "not merely technical in nature" and
failure to comply with Rule 15.1 is grounds for denying a motion to amend. See Cusamano v.
Sobek, 604 F.Supp.2d 416, 508 (N.D.N.Y. 2009); see also White v. Clark, No. 12-CV-0986
(NAM/RFT), 2012 WL 5877160, at *12 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2012) (denying motion to amend
because the plaintiff did not file a complete proposed amended pleading). Mindful of the
Court's obligation to liberally construe a pro se litigant's pleadings, it seems clear that
plaintiff's motion is not intended to replace and supersede in its entirety the complaint in this
action. Moreover, plaintiff is seeking to attach 129 pages of exhibits to the complaint. While
Case 9:25-cv-01049-GTS-DJS Document 32 Filed 05/08/26 Page 5 of 7

6
plaintiff may attach exhibits to his complaint, "he shall not incorporate them by reference as a
means of providing the factual basis for his claims." Yant v. Walker, No. 96-CV-1735
(RSP/GJD), 1997 WL 436842, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. July 29, 1997). The Court may consider
documents attached to a complaint, however, "it is [p]laintiff's burden to plead a short and
plain statement of the claim." Windom v. Zatecky, No. 2:21-CV-00304 (JPH/MJD), 2022 WL
44652, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 5, 2022) (citations omitted). In cases such as this, where plaintiff
has provided voluminous records, the Court should not be required to "sift through the
documents and try to discern their potential relevance at the pleading stage." Windom, 2022
WL 44652, at *1 (citation omitted); see also Lindell v. Litscher, 212 F.Supp.2d 936, 938 (W.D.
Wis. 2002) (dismissing complaint with leave to replead where the plaintiff "omitted crucial
facts" relating to his claims, "choosing instead to refer the court to one or more exhibits
attached to the complaint that he incorporate[d] by reference as though fully set forth
herein.").
Consequently, plaintiff's motion to amend/supplement is denied and complaint (Dkt.
No. 1) remains the operative pleading. Plaintiff is advised that within the time limits set forth
in Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff may submit to the Court for
review an amended complaint as of right or, if necessary, a motion to amend/supplement
supported by a proposed amended complaint. Any proposed amended complaint submitted
must be a complete pleading which sets forth all of the claims plaintiff seeks to assert in this
action against the persons named as defendants. Any proposed amended complaint will be
subject to the Court's review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 15(a).
Case 9:25-cv-01049-GTS-DJS Document 32 Filed 05/08/26 Page 6 of 7

7
III. 	CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, it is hereby
ORDERED that stay of this action is LIFTED; and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiff's motion (Dkt. No. 31) is DENIED in all further respects; and it
is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Decision and Order on
the parties in accordance with the Local Rules of Practice.
Date: May 8, 2026
Syracuse, NY
Case 9:25-cv-01049-GTS-DJS Document 32 Filed 05/08/26 Page 7 of 7