DiSanto v. Ulster County Family Court

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________
PATRICK DISANTO,
Plaintiff,
-v- 	1:25-CV-1329 (AJB/MJK)
ULSTER COUNTY FAMILY COURT,
Defendant.
_____________________________________
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
PATRICK DISANTO
Plaintiff, Pro Se
16008 West 84th Terrace
Lenexa, KS 66219
Hon. Anthony Brindisi, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
On September 19, 2025, pro se plaintiff Patrick DiSanto (“plaintiff”) submitted a filing
entitled “memorandum of law & request for evidentiary hearing,” which the Clerk of the Court
docketed as a complaint. Dkt. No. 1. Along with that filing, plaintiff moved for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”). Dkt. No 2. Thereafter, plaintiff submitted another filing
entitled “memorandum of law & request for evidentiary hearing,” which the Clerk docketed as an
amended complaint. Dkt. No. 4. Plaintiff also filed a “motion to seal case,” Dkt. No. 5, a “dis-
tinction notice,” Dkt. No. 6, a “motion for protective order,” Dkt. No. 8, a “notice of constitutional
challenge,” Dkt. No. 9, a “petition to perpetuate testimony to Rule 27(a)” Dkt. No. 10, a “motion
to vacate judgment for Fraud on the Court,” Dkt. No. 11, and a “motion to seal respondent list,”
Dkt. No. 12.
Case 1:25-cv-01329-AJB-MJK Document 25 Filed 04/14/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
On November 5, 2025, U.S. Magistrate Judge Mitchell J. Katz granted plaintiff’s IFP Ap-
plication and, after an initial review of the pleadings and other filings, advised by Report & Rec-
ommendation (“R&R”) that plaintiff’s amended complaint be dismissed with partial leave to
amend. 	Dkt. No. 13. 	As relevant here, Judge Katz advised that plaintiff be given a chance to
amend most of his claims, but recommended that several of them be dismissed without leave to
amend: (1) claims for negligence/medical malpractice arising out of plaintiff’s “hypoglycemic
event”; (2) claims for false arrest and/or excessive force; and (3) claims against Judge Cahill and
Judge Lalor. Dkt. No. 13 at 21.1 As Judge Katz explained, those three claims were either time-
barred or precluded by immunity principles. Dkt. No. 13 at 21. Aside from those claims, Judge
Katz recommended that plaintiff be given leave to amend. 	Id. 	Notably, however, Judge Katz
cautioned plaintiff that a second amended complaint must conform with certain requirements, in-
cluding those imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 21–22.
On December 9, 2025, this Court adopted Judge Katz’s R&R over plaintiff’s objections
and gave him thirty days to file a second amended complaint that conformed with the instructions
set forth in Judge Katz’s R&R. Dkt. No. 15. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a “statement in support of
second amended complaint and clarification of jurisdictional scope,” Dkt. No. 16, a second
amended complaint, Dkt. No. 20, a “request for evidentiary hearing in question-and-answer format
to resolve judicial bias, civil rights violations, and environmental negligence involving tribal land
and parental rights,” Dkt. No. 21, a “notice regarding incorporation of prior memorandum of law
and request for evidentiary hearing as an exhibit,” Dkt. No. 22, and a motion for leave to file a
third amended complaint, Dkt. No. 23.
1 Pagination corresponds with CM/ECF headers.
Case 1:25-cv-01329-AJB-MJK Document 25 Filed 04/14/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
On March 23, 2026, Judge Katz reviewed plaintiff’s filings and advised by R&R that plain-
tiff’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint be granted. Dkt. No. 24. However, Judge
Katz further advised that plaintiff’s third amended complaint be dismissed with prejudice and
without leave to amend. Dkt. No. 24. There, Judge Katz explained that all of the claims asserted
in plaintiff’s third amended complaint were time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
Id. Further, because the timeliness of plaintiff’s claims was a substantive defect that could not be
cured with better pleading, Judge Katz recommended against further leave to amend. Id.
Plaintiff has not lodged objections, and the time period in which to do so has expired. See
Dkt. No. 24. Upon review for clear error, the R&R is accepted and will be adopted in all respects.
See F ED. R. C IV. P. 72(b).
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. The Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 24) is ACCEPTED; and
2. Plaintiff’s third amended complaint is DISMISSED without leave to further amend.
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 14, 2026
Utica, New York.
Case 1:25-cv-01329-AJB-MJK Document 25 Filed 04/14/26 Page 3 of 3