Sleezer v. Gloversville Police Department

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ERIC S. SLEEZER,
Plaintiff,
1:26-CV-1086
v. 	(AMN/DJS)
GLOVERSVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendant.
APPEARANCES:
ERIC S. SLEEZER
Plaintiff, Pro Se
24-R-1585
Marcy Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 3600
Marcy, New York 13403
DANIEL J. STEWART
United States Magistrate Judge
REPORT-RECOMMENDATION and ORDER
Plaintiff filed this action seeking to assert claims regarding the alleged violation of
his federal rights. 	Dkt. No. 1, Compl. 	Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee but has
submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), Dkt. No. 3, which the
Court has granted.
Case 1:26-cv-01086-AMN-DJS Document 8 Filed 06/02/26 Page 1 of 7

- 2 -
I. SUFFICIENCY OF THE COMPLAINT
A. Governing Legal Standard
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) directs that, when a plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma
pauperis, “(2) . . . the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that
– . . . (B) the action . . . (i) is 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).1 	Thus, even if a plaintiff meets the
financial criteria to commence an action in forma pauperis, it is the court’s responsibility
to determine whether the plaintiff may properly maintain the complaint that he filed in
this District before the court may permit the plaintiff to proceed with this action in forma
pauperis. See id.
Likewise, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a court must review any “complaint in a civil
action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee
of a governmental entity” and must “identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint,
or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint . . . is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or . . . seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; see also Carr v. Dvorin,
171 F.3d 115, 116 (2d Cir. 1999) (per curiam); Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d
1 To determine whether an action is frivolous, a court must look to see whether the complaint “lacks an arguable
basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
Case 1:26-cv-01086-AMN-DJS Document 8 Filed 06/02/26 Page 2 of 7

- 3 -
Cir. 2007) (stating that both sections 1915 and 1915A are available to evaluate pro se
prisoner complaints).
In reviewing a pro se complaint, the court has a duty to show liberality toward pro
se litigants, see Nance v. Kelly, 912 F.2d 605, 606 (2d Cir. 1990) (per curiam), and should
exercise “extreme caution . . . in ordering sua sponte dismissal of a pro se complaint
before the adverse party has been served and both parties (but particularly the plaintiff)
have had an opportunity to respond.” Anderson v. Coughlin, 700 F.2d 37, 41 (2d Cir.
1983) (internal citations omitted). 	Therefore, a court should not dismiss a complaint if
the plaintiff has stated “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). 	“A claim has facial plausibility
when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
Although a court should construe the factual allegations in the light most favorable
to the plaintiff, “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained
in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.” 	Id. 	“Threadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”
Id. (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “[W]here the well-pleaded facts
do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the
complaint has alleged - but it has not show[n] - that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Id.
Case 1:26-cv-01086-AMN-DJS Document 8 Filed 06/02/26 Page 3 of 7

- 4 -
at 679 (quoting FED . R. CIV . P. 8(a)(2)). Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
“demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
Thus, 	a 	pleading 	that 	only 	“tenders 	naked 	assertions 	devoid 	of 	further 	factual
enhancement” will not suffice. Id. (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).
B. Analysis of the Complaint
The facts alleged in the Complaint are brief and a bit unclear. 	They appear to
concern events earlier this year involving the response of the Gloversville Police
Department to an incident involving Plaintiff’s son. Compl. at p. 4. 	Plaintiff generally
alleges that his son was in need of mental health assistance but it was denied. Id.
Dismissal of the Complaint is warranted at this stage of the proceedings. The sole
Defendant named is the Gloversville Police Department. 	However, “[a] city police
department is not an independent, suable entity separate from the municipality in which
the police department is organized.” Krug v. Cnty. of Rensselaer, 559 F. Supp. 2d 223,
247 (N.D.N.Y. 2008) (citing cases); see also Mock v. City of Rome, 851 F. Supp. 2d 428,
436 (N.D.N.Y. 2012). As a result, dismissal is appropriate because the Syracuse Police
Department is not a proper party.
In Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, the Supreme Court
recognized that a local municipality can be held liable for violations of constitutional
rights under certain circumstances. 	436 U.S. 658, 690-691 (1978). 	“The elements of a
Case 1:26-cv-01086-AMN-DJS Document 8 Filed 06/02/26 Page 4 of 7

- 5 -
Monell claim are (1) a municipal policy or custom that (2) causes the plaintiff to be
subjected to (3) the deprivation of a constitutional right.” Agosto v. New York City Dep’t
of Educ., 982 F.3d 86, 97 (2d Cir. 2020) (citing Batista v. Rodriguez, 702 F.2d 393, 397
(2d Cir. 1983)). Even were the Court to liberally construe the Complaint to assert such a
claim it should be dismissed as insufficiently pled. 	In order for an individual whose
constitutional rights have been violated to have recourse against a municipality under §
1983, he must show that he was harmed by a municipal “policy” or “custom.” Monell v.
Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of the City of N.Y., 436 U.S. at 690-91. Here, the Complaint identifies
no unconstitutional policy on the part of the municipality. That omission is fatal, at this
juncture, to Plaintiff’s Complaint. Arnold v. Town of Camillus, New York, 662 F. Supp.
3d 245, 259 (N.D.N.Y. 2023) (“Plaintiff has not identified any formal town policy that
has deprived [him] of equal protection.”); Beckwith v. City of Syracuse, 642 F. Supp. 3d
283, 293 (N.D.N.Y. 2022) (dismissal required when complaint “does not allege the
existence of any policy, practice, or custom from which [plaintiff’s] alleged constitutional
violation resulted.”).
Finally, the Court notes that the Complaint is somewhat unclear as to whether
Plaintiff asserts claims of harm to himself or just claims to his son. See Compl. at pp. 4-
5.2 While a litigant in federal court has the right to act as her own counsel, “[a] person
2 It is unclear whether Plaintiff’s child is a minor.
Case 1:26-cv-01086-AMN-DJS Document 8 Filed 06/02/26 Page 5 of 7

- 6 -
who has not been admitted to the practice of law may not represent anybody other than
himself.” Guest v. Hansen, 603 F.3d 15, 20 (2d Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). This rule
extends to parents: “a parent not admitted to the bar cannot bring an action pro se in
federal court on behalf of his or her child.” 	Tindall v. Pultney High School Dist., 414
F.3d 281, 284-85 (2d Cir. 2005).
Courts recognize that dismissal of a complaint filed by a pro se litigant without
first granting leave to amend at least once “when a liberal reading of the complaint gives
any indication that a valid claim might be stated” would be inappropriate. 	Branum v.
Clark, 927 F.2d 698, 704-05 (2d Cir. 1991). Should Plaintiff be directed by the District
Judge to file an amended complaint, I offer the following guidance. Any such amended
complaint, which shall supersede and replace in its entirety the previous Complaint filed
by Plaintiff, must clearly state the nature of the suit and the basis for this Court’s
jurisdiction. 	The body of Plaintiff’s amended complaint must contain sequentially
numbered paragraphs containing only one act of misconduct per paragraph and should
state with specificity the legal claim for relief and the basis for damages. 	Plaintiff is
referred to F ED . R. CIV . P. 8 and 10 as to the proper form for his pleadings.
II. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, it is hereby
RECOMMENDED, that Plaintiff’s Complaint be DISMISSED with leave to
amend; and it is
Case 1:26-cv-01086-AMN-DJS Document 8 Filed 06/02/26 Page 6 of 7

- 7 -
ORDERED, 	that 	the 	Clerk 	of 	the 	Court 	serve 	a 	copy 	of 	this 	Report-
Recommendation and Order upon the parties to this action.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties have fourteen (14)3 days within
which to file written objections to the foregoing report. 	Such objections shall be filed
with the Clerk of the Court. FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THIS REPORT WITHIN
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS WILL PRECLUDE APPELLATE REVIEW. 	Roldan v.
Racette, 984 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir. 1993) (citing Small v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs.,
892 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1989)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); F ED . R. CIV . P. 72 & 6(a).
Dated: June 2, 2026
Albany, New York
3 If you are proceeding pro se and are served with this Order by mail, three additional days will be added to the
fourteen-day period, meaning that you have seventeen days from the date the order was mailed to you to serve and
file objections. F ED. R. CIV. P. 6(d). If the last day of that prescribed period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal
holiday, then the deadline is extended until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.
FED. R. C IV. P. 6(a)(1)(C).
Case 1:26-cv-01086-AMN-DJS Document 8 Filed 06/02/26 Page 7 of 7