Stabb v. Syracuse Police Department et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________
THOMAS H. STABB, JR.,
Plaintiff, 	5:25-CV-0280
v. 	(ECC/PJE)
SYRACUSE POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
APPEARANCES:
Thomas H. Stabb, Jr.
A02505
Columbia CI
216 S.E. Corrections Way
Lake City, Florida 32025
Plaintiff pro se
PAUL J. EVANGELISTA
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
REPORT-RECOMMENDATION & ORDER
I. Background
Plaintiff commenced this action on March 3, 2025, with the filing of a complaint.
See Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.). 	On October 7, 2025, the undersigned granted plaintiff’s In
Forma Pauperis application and recommended that his complaint be dismissed without
prejudice and with opportunity to amend for failure to comply with Rules 8 and 10 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). See Dkt. No. 6. In the Report-
Recommendation & Order, plaintiff was advised that, if the District Judge permitted him
to amend his complaint, the amended complaint would supersede and replace the
original complaint in its entirety. See id. at 9. n.4. On October 27, 2025, the Court
Case 5:25-cv-00280-ECC-PJE Document 12 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 7

2
adopted the Report-Recommendation & Order in its entirety. See Dkt. No. 7. On
December 2, 2025, plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. See Dkt. No. 10 (“Am.
Compl.”).
Presently before the undersigned is review of plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2), 28 U.S.C. §1915A.1
II. Section 1915 Review
A. Amended Complaint
In the Amended Complaint, plaintiff names as defendants Onodoga (sic) County
and The State of New York. See Am Compl. at 2. Plaintiff provides
Due the charges of the arrest Warrent (sic) Co. Clophatt gave my bed # to
the blood gang for me to be beaten up, made to clean, the gang members
raise there (sic) hand or first at me while swing at me for having a sex
offence. 	That I came off the NY registry on 2-25-25. 	Co Cophatt would
segrate (sic) sex offenders and make them clean the dorm instead of the
house men.
Id.
Plaintiff states that his injuries are “mental, emotional anguish, the beging (sic)
stage of ptsd.” Am Compl. at 2. Plaintiff seeks: $600 million from Onadoga (sic) County
$600 million from the State of New York.” Id.
B. Discussion
The Amended Complaint again fails to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff’s amended complaint names as defendants Onondaga
County and the State of New York. See generally Am. Compl. He does not explain the
basis of this Court’s jurisdiction nor demonstrate how any named defendant violated any
1 The undersigned laid out the legal standards in detail in the October 7, 2025. See Dkt. No. 6 at 2-6.
Thus, it need not be repeated here.
Case 5:25-cv-00280-ECC-PJE Document 12 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 7

3
federal law or right. See generally id. The sole and sparse factual allegations in the
amended complaint involve C.O. Clophatt/Cophatt, who seems to be a corrections
officer at his facility in Florida. See id. at 2. Further, the alleged conduct involving
Clophatt/Cophatt and the “blood gang members” appears to have occurred at a
correctional facility in Florida. See id. Plaintiff contends that Clophatt/Cophatt either
informed incarcerated persons, who are gang members, that plaintiff committed a sex
offence or directed inmates to assault him because he is a sex offender. See id.
Plaintiff further alleges that (1) the gang members at his facility threaten him and force
him to clean for them; and (2) Clophatt/Cophatt also forced plaintiff to clean for him and
“segregate[s] sex offenders.” Id. Plaintiff does not indicate how a Florida corrections
officer’s alleged misconduct is tied to the named defendants – a municipality and the
State of New York. See generally id. Plaintiff does not explain the relevance of his
“c[oming] off” the New York State Sex Offender Registry in February 2025. See id. at 3.
Despite identifying the State of New York and Onondaga County as defendants
in the caption and under the “defendant information” section of his form Amended
Complaint, plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not mention these defendants again nor
suggest any connection between his conditions of confinement in his Florida facility and
the only named defendants. See Am. Compl. at 3. Their being named as parties,
without more, does not suffice. See Cipriani v. Buffardi, No. 9:06-CV-0889 (LEK/DRH),
2007 WL 607341, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2007) (citation omitted) (“A complaint cannot
be maintained against a defendant who is listed in the caption, but against whom no
facts are alleged in the body of the complaint.”).2 Although the undersigned recognizes
2 	The Court has provided plaintiff with copies of unpublished cases cited herein.
Case 5:25-cv-00280-ECC-PJE Document 12 Filed 01/05/26 Page 3 of 7

4
that the defendants’ “residence” is an appropriate basis for venue and the named
defendants do “reside” in this District, plaintiff has not set forth any facts regarding these
defendants or state any claims against them. Rather, all of the alleged events he
describes appear to have occurred in Florida.3
Although plaintiff has named Onondaga County, in addition to not stating any
facts regarding the County, the amended complaint makes no argument that Onondaga
County violated his constitutional rights or that the violation was due to a specific
municipal custom, policy, usage, or failure to train or supervise. “To set forth a
cognizable claim for municipal liability under § 1983, a plaintiff must plead that a
deprivation of his constitutional rights was ‘caused by a governmental custom, policy, or
usage of the municipality[,]’” Dougal v. Lewicki, No. 1:23-CV-1167 (DNH/CFH), 2023
WL 6430586, at *10 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, 2023
WL 7013384 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 25, 2023) (quoting Jones v. Town of E. Haven, 691 F.3d
72, 80 (2d Cir. 2012), and citing Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S.
658, 690-91 (1978)), or policymakers’ failure to supervise or train its employees that
rises to deliberate indifference. See Parker v. City of Long Beach, 563 F. App’x 39 (2d
3 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), which provides,
[a] civil action may be brought in—
(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the
State in which the district is located;
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the
claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated;
or
(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this
section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal
jurisdiction with respect to such action.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
Case 5:25-cv-00280-ECC-PJE Document 12 Filed 01/05/26 Page 4 of 7

5
Cir. 2014) (summary order). As the amended complaint sets forth no facts and makes
no argument that Onondaga County violated his constitutional rights and that any harm
he allegedly suffered was the result of a policy, practice, custom, or failure to train or
supervise, the amended complaint fails to state a claim against the municipality. See
Dougal, 2023 WL 6430586, at *10; see also Santos v. New York City, 847 F. Supp. 2d
573, 576 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (explaining that, to state an official policy claim under Monell,
the plaintiff “must do more than simply state that a municipal policy . . . exists”); Segal v.
City of New York, 459 F.3d 207, 219 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that once a “district court
properly [finds] no underlying constitutional violation, its decision not to address the
municipal defendants’ liability under Monell [is] entirely correct”). Further, to the extent
plaintiff has named the State of New York, such claims are barred by Sovereign
Immunity. See, e.g., Harrison v. New York, 95 F. Supp. 3d 293, 314 (E.D.N.Y. 2015)
(internal quotations and citation omitted) (collecting cases) (“It is well established that
New York State has not waived its sovereign immunity from Section 1983 claims.”).
In sum, the amended complaint fully fails to comply with this Court’s orders,
satisfy Rule 8’s requirements, or give defendants adequate notice of the claims against
them. See FED. R. CIV. P. 8; Sheehy v. Brown, 335 F. App’x 102, 104 (2d Cir. 2009);
Dkt. Nos. 6, 7.
District courts generally grant a pro se plaintiff leave to amend a complaint
to cure its defects, but leave to amend may be denied if the plaintiff has
already been given an opportunity to amend but has failed to cure the
complaint's deficiencies. See Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184,
191 (2d Cir. 2008) (“Where it appears that granting leave to amend is
unlikely to be productive . . . it is not an abuse of discretion to deny leave to
amend.”); see also Nat’l Credit Union Admin. Bd. v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n,
898 F.3d 243, 257 (2d Cir. 2018) (“When a plaintiff was aware ‘of the
deficiencies in his complaint when he first amended,’ he ‘clearly has no right
Case 5:25-cv-00280-ECC-PJE Document 12 Filed 01/05/26 Page 5 of 7

6
to a second amendment[.]’ ”) (quoting Denny v. Barber, 576 F.2d 465, 471
(2d Cir. 1978)).
Here, because Plaintiff has already been given an opportunity to amend and
the 	Amended 	Complaint 	fails 	to 	remedy 	the 	deficiencies 	previously
identified in the prior Report-Recommendation, the undersigned has no
doubt that any future attempts would be fruitless. Therefore, the Court
recommends the dismissal of the Amended Complaint without leave to
amend.
Dunn v. Onondaga Cnty. Med. Examiner’s Off., No. 5:23-CV-00730 (GTS/TWD), 2024
WL 5497138, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2024), report and recommendation adopted sub
nom. Dunn v. Onondaga Cnty. Med. Examiner’s Off., No. 5:23-CV-0730 (GTS/TWD),
2024 WL 5497152 (N.D.N.Y. June 25, 2024); see also Chavis v. Chappius, 618 F.3d
162, 170 (2d Cir. 2010) (stating that the court’s obligation “to draw the most favorable
inferences” from a pro se complaint does not allow it to “invent factual allegations that
[the plaintiff] has not pled.”). As plaintiff has already been given an opportunity to
amend and failed to cure the defects identified or even mention the one non-immune
named defendant anywhere in the body of the complaint, let alone set forth a Monell
claim against it, instead focusing exclusively on an individual located, and incidents
occurring, outside of this District, it appears nearly certain that a second opportunity
would be “fruitless,” the undersigned recommends dismissal without opportunity to
amend. Dunn, 2025 WL 549138, at *4.
As a final matter, plaintiff filed a letter dated December 2, 2025, complaining
about a certain prescription that his facility will not provide. See Dkt. No. 11 at 1. To
the extent plaintiff has concerns regarding the discontinuance of a medication at his
facility, he must pursue the facility’s grievance procedure.
III. Conclusion
Case 5:25-cv-00280-ECC-PJE Document 12 Filed 01/05/26 Page 6 of 7

7
Wherefore, for the reasons set forth herein, it is hereby
RECOMMENDED, that plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 10, be
DISMISSED with prejudice4; and it is
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve this Report-Recommendation & Order on
plaintiff in accordance with Local Rules.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), plaintiff has FOURTEEN (14) 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. 	See 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); FED. R. CIV . P. 6(a), 72.5
Dated: January 5, 2026
Albany, New York
4 The recommendation is, of course, without prejudice to plaintiff seeking to pursue an action relating to
the conditions of his confinement at his Florida correctional facility, in the appropriate Florida court or
venue, should he wish to do so. The undersigned makes no comment as to whether plaintiff can properly
or successfully pursue such a claim.
5 If you are proceeding pro se and are served with this Report-Recommendation and Order by mail, three
(3) additional days will be added to the fourteen-day (14) period, meaning that you have seventeen (17)
days from the date the Report-Recommendation and Order was mailed to you to serve and file objections.
See F ED. R. C IV . 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.
See id. § 6(a)(1)(c).
Case 5:25-cv-00280-ECC-PJE Document 12 Filed 01/05/26 Page 7 of 7