Williams v. Houser

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CHAD S. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
6:26-CV-338
v. 	(MAD/DJS)
HON. BARBER J. HOUSER, Trustee of the Boy Scouts
of America Settlement Trust,
Defendant.
APPEARANCES:
CHAD S. WILLIAMS
Plaintiff, Pro Se
24-B-4203
Mid-State Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 2500
Marcy, New York 13403
DANIEL J. STEWART
United States Magistrate Judge
REPORT-RECOMMENDATION and ORDER
Plaintiff pro se filed this Complaint asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Dkt. No. 1, Compl., ¶ 4. Plaintiff
is incarcerated at Mid-State Correctional Facility. Id. at ¶ 1. Defendant is identified as
the Trustee of a settlement fund regarding sexual abuse victims of the Boy Scouts of
America. Id. at ¶ 3. Plaintiff claims to be a beneficiary of that settlement fund. Id. at ¶¶
Case 6:26-cv-00338-MAD-DJS Document 7 Filed 03/30/26 Page 1 of 9

- 2 -
12-13. Plaintiff has filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. No.
2, which this Court has granted by separate order.
I. 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
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). 	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
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 6:26-cv-00338-MAD-DJS Document 7 Filed 03/30/26 Page 2 of 9

- 3 -
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.
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).
II. ANALYSIS
The nature of the claim here is unclear. 	At one point in the Complaint Plaintiff
states that he seeks an order directing Defendant to provide payment to Plaintiff’s
designated agent pursuant to procedures of the settlement trust. 	Compl. at ¶¶ 13 & 14.
The Complaint does not allege, however, when he was scheduled to receive this payment
and makes no allegation that Defendant has engaged in any unlawful practice or conduct
Case 6:26-cv-00338-MAD-DJS Document 7 Filed 03/30/26 Page 3 of 9

- 4 -
with respect to Plaintiff’s settlement trust claim. 	It is thus unclear on what legal basis
Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant rests.
Elsewhere in the Complaint, Plaintiff references a purported breach of contract by
a private law firm and alleged misconduct by officials at the correctional facility where
he is presently incarcerated. See, e.g., id. at ¶¶ 13, 16, 17, & 20. Neither the law firm nor
any correctional employees are named as Defendants, however.
For the reasons that follow, the Court recommends that the Complaint be
dismissed, though with leave to amend.
First, the nature of the allegations simply are unclear. A court’s initial review of a
complaint under § 1915(e) must encompass the applicable standards of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. 	Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a
pleading must contain:
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction . .
. ;
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief; and
(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the
alternative or different types of relief.
FED . R. CIV . P. 8(a). 	The purpose of Rule 8 “is to give fair notice of the claim being
asserted so as to permit the adverse party the opportunity to file a responsive answer [and]
prepare an adequate defense.” 	Powell v. Marine Midland Bank, 162 F.R.D. 15, 16
(N.D.N.Y. 1995) (citations and internal alterations omitted). 	A complaint that fails to
Case 6:26-cv-00338-MAD-DJS Document 7 Filed 03/30/26 Page 4 of 9

- 5 -
comply with basic pleading requirements presents too heavy a burden for defendants to
craft a defense “and provides no meaningful basis for the Court to assess the sufficiency
of [the plaintiff’s] claims,” and may properly be dismissed. Gonzales v. Wing, 167 F.R.D.
352, 355 (N.D.N.Y. 1996). The Complaint has not alleged that the one named Defendant
engaged in any conduct contrary to law that would provide a cause of action. Where, as
here, the pleading “does not provide an adequate description of the particular acts by the
defendant which led to this suit or an explanation of how such acts were illegal” dismissal
is appropriate. Powell v. Marine Midland Bank, 162 F.R.D. at 16.
Second, Plaintiff’s specifically identified cause of action is pursuant to section
1983. 	Compl. at ¶ 4. 	“Because the United States Constitution regulates only the
Government, not private parties, a litigant claiming that his constitutional rights have been
violated must first establish that the challenged conduct constitutes state action.” Flagg
v. Yonkers Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 396 F.3d 178, 186 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks
omitted). 	“A plaintiff pressing a claim of violation of his constitutional rights under §
1983 is thus required to show state action.” 	Tancredi v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 316 F.3d
308, 312 (2d Cir. 2003). “It is axiomatic that private citizens and entities are not generally
subject to Section 1983 liability.” Anilao v. Spota, 774 F. Supp. 2d 457, 497 (E.D.N.Y.
2011), aff’d, 27 F.4th 855 (2d Cir. 2022) (citing cases). 	While there are circumstances
when a private citizen can be deemed a state actor, id. at 497-498, the Complaint fails to
make any allegation at all demonstrating a basis for finding that Defendant is a state actor.
Case 6:26-cv-00338-MAD-DJS Document 7 Filed 03/30/26 Page 5 of 9

- 6 -
A court should avoid dismissal of complaints filed by individuals proceeding pro
se without first granting leave to amend “when a liberal reading of the complaint gives
any indication that a valid claim might be stated.” Branum v. Clark, 927 F.2d 698, 704-
05 (2d Cir. 1991). The nature of the pleading in this case makes it difficult to ascertain
whether Plaintiff could do so. In deference to Plaintiff’s pro se status, therefore, the Court
recommends that the Complaint be dismissed, but with leave to amend.
The Court advises Plaintiff that should he be permitted to amend his Complaint,
any amended pleading he submits must comply with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. Any such amended complaint, which shall supersede and replace
in its entirety the previous Complaint filed by Plaintiff, must contain sequentially
numbered paragraphs containing only one act of misconduct per paragraph. Thus,
if Plaintiff claims that his rights were violated by more than one defendant, or on more
than one occasion, he should include a corresponding number of paragraphs in his
amended complaint for each such allegation, with each paragraph specifying (i) the
alleged act of misconduct; (ii) the date, including the year, on which such misconduct
occurred; (iii) the names of each and every individual who participated in such
misconduct; (iv) where appropriate, the location where the alleged misconduct occurred;
and, (v) the nexus between such misconduct and Plaintiff’s federal rights.
Plaintiff is further cautioned that no portion of his prior Complaint shall be
incorporated into the amended complaint by reference. 	Any amended complaint
Case 6:26-cv-00338-MAD-DJS Document 7 Filed 03/30/26 Page 6 of 9

- 7 -
submitted by Plaintiff must set forth all of the claims he intends to assert against the
defendant and must demonstrate that a case or controversy exists between the Plaintiff
and the defendant which Plaintiff has a legal right to pursue and over which this Court
has jurisdiction. If Plaintiff is alleging that the named defendant violated a law, he should
specifically refer to such law.
III. MOTION FOR COUNSEL AND TRANSFER
Plaintiff has also filed a letter request for appointment of counsel and to request
that the matter be transferred to a court in Delaware. Dkt. No. 5. The request to transfer
is denied at this time because Plaintiff has failed to allege that Delaware is a proper venue.
The Motion for appointment of counsel is also denied. 	“A party has no
constitutionally guaranteed right to the assistance of counsel in a civil case.” Leftridge v.
Connecticut State Trooper Officer No. 1283, 640 F.3d 62, 68 (2d Cir. 2011) (citations
omitted). As a threshold matter, the court should ascertain whether the indigent’s claims
seem likely to be of substance. 	A motion for appointment of counsel may be properly
denied if the court concludes that the plaintiff’s “chances of success are highly dubious.”
Id. at 69. In the present matter, the case is at a very early stage. Indeed, only allegations
have been made at this point; no evidence has yet been submitted relating to Plaintiff’s
claims. 	As such, Plaintiff has not met the threshold requirement of demonstrating that
her claims seem likely to be of substance. 	See Brown v. Utica Police Dep’t, 2017 WL
5514518, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2017) (“Where there are merely unsupported
Case 6:26-cv-00338-MAD-DJS Document 7 Filed 03/30/26 Page 7 of 9

- 8 -
allegations, the moving party does not meet the first requirement imposed by the Second
Circuit for appointment of pro bono counsel.”) (citation omitted)).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, it is hereby
RECOMMENDED, that Plaintiff’s Complaint be DISMISSED as set forth
above; and it is
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Motion for Counsel and to Transfer is DENIED; and
it is further
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)2 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.,
2 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 6:26-cv-00338-MAD-DJS Document 7 Filed 03/30/26 Page 8 of 9

- 9 -
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: March 30, 2026
Albany, New York
Case 6:26-cv-00338-MAD-DJS Document 7 Filed 03/30/26 Page 9 of 9