Gammons v. Cody et al

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________
SHAWN TAYLOR GAMMONS,
Plaintiff,
-v- 	1:25-CV-1714 (AJB/DJS)
SAMANTHA ANNA-KAY CODY et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
SHAWN TAYLOR GAMMONS
Plaintiff, Pro Se
85 Hunter Avenue
Albany, NY 12206
Hon. Anthony Brindisi, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
On December 8, 2025, pro se plaintiff Shawn Taylor Gammons (“plaintiff”) filed this 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action against various defendants involved in ongoing family court proceedings in
Greene County. See Dkt. No. 1. Broadly speaking, the complaint alleges that multiple attorneys,
case workers, and others have conspired to deny him certain parental and economic rights. 	Id.
Along with his complaint, plaintiff moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Applica-
tion”). Dkt. No. 2.
On February 4, 2026, U.S. Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart granted plaintiff’s IFP Ap-
plication and advised by Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) that plaintiff’s complaint be dis-
missed with partial leave to amend. Dkt. Nos. 5, 6. As Judge Stewart explained, private actors
are generally not amenable to suit under § 1983, and plaintiff’s broad allegations of a conspiracy
Case 1:25-cv-01714-AJB-DJS Document 15 Filed 02/23/26 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
against him were insufficient to bring any of the private-actor defendants within one of the excep-
tions to that general rule. 	Dkt. No. 6. 	Judge Stewart further concluded that certain defendants
were not proper parties and that plaintiff had failed to state plausible claims against others. 	Id.
Although Judge Stewart determined that plaintiff could not pursue claims against the seven private
attorneys, he reasoned that plaintiff might be able to allege plausible claims against one or more
of the remaining named defendants. Id. Accordingly, Judge Stewart recommended dismissal with
partial leave to amend. Id.
Plaintiff has not lodged objections. Instead, plaintiff has filed: (1) an amended complaint;
(2) a motion for a preliminary injunction; (3) an “emergency” motion to compel and for a protec-
tive order; (4) a request for admissions; (5) a request for a production of documents; (6) a motion
for spoliation sanctions; (7) a notice to take deposition; and (8) a first set of interrogatories. Dkt.
Nos. 7–14.
Upon de novo review, Judge Stewart’s R&R is accepted and will be adopted. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C). Plaintiff’s other filings are premature—a party who proceeds IFP must ordinarily
wait for the Court to accept a pleading for filing before proceeding any further in the litigation.
Accordingly, his motions must be denied and his requests and interrogatories must be stricken
from the docket.
Plaintiff’s amended complaint, Dkt. No. 7, was also prematurely filed, since the Court had
not yet accepted the R&R (which it will do today). But the Court declines to strike this amended
pleading, at least at this time. Instead, the Court will adopt the R&R and give plaintiff the standard
thirty-day period of time in which to file an amended pleading that conforms with the instructions
set forth in the R&R. If plaintiff files another pleading within that thirty-day window, that new
pleading will be referred to Judge Stewart for further action as appropriate. However, if plaintiff
Case 1:25-cv-01714-AJB-DJS Document 15 Filed 02/23/26 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
does not file a new pleading within that thirty-day time frame, the current “amended complaint”
(the one that was prematurely filed at Dkt. No. 7) will be referred to Judge Stewart for review.
A final observation. 	Plaintiff has previously filed federal-court litigation arising out of
similar, or perhaps related, family court proceedings in Greene County. Gammons v. Cody, 1:25-
CV-941 (N.D.N.Y.) (AJB/DJS). 	That prior federal-court case was dismissed because plaintiff
(quite reasonably under the circumstances) elected not to try to amend that pleading after it was
dismissed. See id. Notably, in that previous case plaintiff was advised about some of the same
legal issues that have come up in this newly filed case. See id.
This new lawsuit is somewhat distinct from plaintiff’s old one. Even so, the Court cautions
plaintiff that alleged misconduct by others occurring in connection with ongoing domestic rela-
tions matters in state court are almost always going to be a matter for the state courts to adjudicate.
Congress has only given federal courts limited jurisdiction, and one consequence of that “limited”
jurisdictional grant is that you cannot ordinarily bring meritorious federal civil rights lawsuits
against actors involved in a state-court proceeding.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. The Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 6) is ACCEPTED;
2. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with partial leave to amend;
3. Plaintiff’s motions (Dkt. Nos. 8, 9, 12) are DENIED;
4. Plaintiff’s requests (Dkt. No. 10, 11, 13, 14) are STRICKEN;
5. Plaintiff shall have THIRTY DAYS in which to file a further amended complaint that
conforms with the instructions set forth in Judge Stewart’s R&R;
Case 1:25-cv-01714-AJB-DJS Document 15 Filed 02/23/26 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
6. If plaintiff timely files a further amended complaint, the matter shall be referred to
Judge Stewart for further action as appropriate; and
7. If plaintiff does not timely file a further amended complaint, the matter shall be re-
ferred to Judge Stewart for a review of the (Dkt. No. 7) amended complaint.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motions and set the appropri-
ate deadlines.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
Utica, New York.
February 23, 2026
Case 1:25-cv-01714-AJB-DJS Document 15 Filed 02/23/26 Page 4 of 4