Uvino v. Wyant et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MARIA UVINO,
Plaintiff,
9:24-CV-1460
v. 	(GTS/PJE)
DEPUTY WYANT,
Defendant.
APPEARANCES:
MARIA UVINO
Plaintiff, pro se
366 Caniff Rd
Freehold, NY 12431
MURPHY BURNS LLP 	STEPHEN M. GROUDINE, ESQ.
Attorney for Defendants
407 Albany Shaker Road
Loundonville, NY 12211
GLENN T. SUDDABY
Senior United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
I. 	INTRODUCTION
Pro se plaintiff Maria Uvino commenced this action by filing a complaint asserting
claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983"), together with an application to proceed
in forma pauperis ("IFP"). Dkt. No. 1 ("Compl."); Dkt. No. 4 ("IFP Application"). By Decision
and Order entered on February 4, 2025, this Court granted plaintiff's IFP Application, and
following review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b), dismissed certain of plaintiff's claims and found that her Fourth Amendment
Case 9:24-cv-01460-GTS-PJE Document 60 Filed 04/07/26 Page 1 of 15

2
excessive force claim against defendant Wyant survived sua sponte review and required a
response. Dkt. No. 9 ("February 2025 Order").
Following the completion of service, counsel for defendant Wyant filed an answer to
the complaint and a Mandatory Pretrial Discovery and Scheduling Order was issued. Dkt.
No. 15 ("Answer"); Dkt. No. 16 ("Scheduling Order"). Thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion to
amend the complaint, together with a proposed amended complaint. Dkt. No. 18 ("First
Motion to Amend"); Dkt. No. 18-1 ("Prop. Am. Compl."). Defendant Wyant did not oppose the
First Motion to Amend. Dkt. No. 19.
By Decision and Order entered on July 18, 2025, the First Motion to Amend was
granted in part and denied in part, and plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment excessive force claim
against defendant Wyant once again remained in this action. Dkt. No. 20 (“July 2025 Order”).
On July 24, 2025, counsel answered the amended complaint on behalf of defendant Wyant.
Dkt. No. 22. Roughly three weeks later, plaintiff filed a second motion to amend the operative
pleading, together with a proposed second amended complaint. Dkt. No. 23 ("Second Motion
to Amend"); Dkt. No. 23-1 ("Prop. SAC").
By Decision and Order entered on October 1, 2025, the Court granted the Second
Motion to Amend in part and denied it in part, ordered that the proposed second amended
complaint be accepted as the operative pleading, and found that the following claims required
a response: (1) plaintiff's Fourth Amendment excessive force claim against defendant Wyant;
(2) plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment medical indifference claims against defendants Greene
County Officials John Doe #1 and John Doe #2; and (3) plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment
due process claim against defendant Deyo. Dkt. No. 30 (“October 2025 Order”).1
1 In accordance with the October 2025 Order, the proposed second amended complaint was docketed as the
second amended complaint. See Dkt. No. 31 (“SAC”).
Case 9:24-cv-01460-GTS-PJE Document 60 Filed 04/07/26 Page 2 of 15

3
Following the issuance of the October 2025 Order, counsel for defendant Wyant filed a
status report regarding the Greene County “Doe” defendants remaining in this action, and
plaintiff filed a motion for partial reconsideration of the October 2025 Order or, alternatively,
leave to amend, and a letter request to correct the last name of a dismissed defendant. See
Dkt. No. 33 (“Status Report”); Dkt. No. 34 (“Motion for Reconsideration”); Dkt. No. 41 ("Letter
Request"). By Decision and Order entered on November 18, 2025, the Court denied
plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, granted his alternative request for leave to file a third
amended complaint in part, and afforded plaintiff thirty days to file a third amended complaint
in accordance with the Court’s Decision and Order. See Dkt. No. 43 (“November 2025
Order”).
Presently before the Court are the following: (1) plaintiff’s third amended complaint,
Dkt. No. 55 (“TAC”); and (2) plaintiff’s letter request for the issuance of summonses, Dkt. No.
56 (“Letter Request Regarding Summonses”).
II. 	SUFFICIENCY OF THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
A. 	Relevant Legal Standard
Because plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis and is suing one or more
government employees, her third amended complaint must be reviewed in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The legal standard governing the
review of a pleading pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) was
discussed at length in the February 2025 Order and it will not be restated in this Decision and
Order. See February 2025 Order at 2-4.
B. 	October 2025 Order
The proposed second amended complaint was construed to assert the following
Case 9:24-cv-01460-GTS-PJE Document 60 Filed 04/07/26 Page 3 of 15

4
Section 1983 claims: (1) a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim against defendant
Wyant; (2) Fourteenth Amendment failure-to-intervene and medical indifference claims
against defendant Drum arising out of the events associated with plaintiff’s arrest; (3)
Fourteenth Amendment medical indifference claims against defendants Greene County
Medical Professionals John Doe #1-3 and Ulster County Medical Professionals John and
Jane Doe #4-6; and (4) a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against defendant Deyo.
See October 2025 Order at 7-9.
Upon review, the Court granted the Second Motion to Amend to allow plaintiff to
proceed with the following claims: (1) plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment excessive force claim
against defendant Wyant; (2) plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment medical indifference claims
against defendants John Doe #1 and John Doe #2; and (3) plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment
due process claim against defendant Deyo. See October 2025 Order at 7-9. The Second
Motion to Amend was denied with respect to all other claims raised in the proposed pleading.
Id. at 9-18.
C. 	November 2025 Order
As noted, the November 2025 Order denied plaintiff’s request for partial
reconsideration of the October 2025 Order but granted her alternative request for leave to file
an amended complaint in part. More specifically, the Court granted plaintiff leave to file a
third amended complaint “that addresses each of the deficiencies identified [in the November
2025 Order . . . and . . . October 2025 Order] with respect to the Greene County and Ulster
County defendants (and repeats the allegations of wrongdoing that form the basis of her
surviving claims against defendants Wyant, Deyo, and John Doe #1).” See November 2025
Order at 11. Plaintiff was also specifically cautioned that “[i]nsofar as [she] believes that she
Case 9:24-cv-01460-GTS-PJE Document 60 Filed 04/07/26 Page 4 of 15

5
was deprived of constitutionally adequate medical or mental health treatment by officials after
returning from hospital visits, any new pleading must provide specific details regarding how
and when specific officials named as defendants were aware of plaintiff’s need for medical or
mental health treatment that she did not receive.” Id.
D. 	Overview of the Third Amended Complaint
The allegations in the third amended complaint are materially similar to the allegations
in the second amended complaint, except that the third amended complaint names certain
officials as defendants in place of certain previously named “Doe” defendants, and includes
more details regarding the alleged wrongdoing by the named defendants. The following facts
are set forth as alleged in the third amended complaint.
On December 27, 2021, plaintiff informed defendant Deputy Wyant that she was
pregnant, and she did not attempt to flee his presence or resist arrest. TAC at 6.
Nonetheless, defendant Wyant “forced plaintiff stomach-down onto the ground” and
handcuffed her hands behind her back. Id.
After “abdominal force” was applied, plaintiff “complain[ed] of abdominal pain.” TAC at
10. Defendant Greene County Emergency Medical Technician (“EMT”) Younge “heard
plaintiff state she was pregnant and in pain” but did not perform an “abdominal trauma
assessment” or “fetal assessment[.]” Id. at 6. Defendant Wyant also “did not request
emergency medical evaluation before [plaintiff’s] transport to [Greene County Jail].” Id. at 10.
Upon arriving at Greene County Jail, plaintiff was “processed” at “intake[.]” TAC at 6.
Plaintiff “disclosed [her] pregnancy during intake screening” and “reported [her] abdominal
trauma” to defendant John/Jane Doe Intake Official but plaintiff did not receive a medical
evaluation. Id. at 5, 7, 15. Instead, plaintiff was transferred to Ulster County Jail. Id. at 7.
Case 9:24-cv-01460-GTS-PJE Document 60 Filed 04/07/26 Page 5 of 15

6
Upon arriving at Ulster County Jail, defendant John/Jane Doe Intake Official
“documented [plaintiff’s] pregnancy and abdominal trauma.” TAC at 5, 7.
On December 31, 2021, plaintiff “was transported to Kingston Hospital.” TAC at 7.
Plaintiff received an “[u]ltrasound[, which] confirmed [the] absence of [a] fetal heartbeat.” Id.
One or more hospital officials “instructed [plaintiff to] return within approximately two days for
follow-up intervention.” Id. Plaintiff was then “returned to Ulster County Jail.” Id.
Defendants Nurse Practitioner Juliet West and Nurse Kathy Anderson were “aware of
[the] hospital discharge instructions.” TAC at 7. Defendant Dr. Khouri “was aware of [the]
nonviable pregnancy diagnosis.” Id. Each of these three officials also “had [the] authority to
initiate [an] outside referral.” Id.
Plaintiff was not scheduled for follow-up care, and “[n]o hospital transport was
ordered.” TAC at 7. Plaintiff “experienced continued bleeding” and “severe abdominal pain.”
Id. Plaintiff “repeatedly requested medical care” but her requests “were ignored or not acted
upon.” Id. Plaintiff ultimately “miscarried alone in her jail cell.” Id.
Plaintiff did not receive an “immediate obstetrical evaluation . . . after [her]
miscarriage.” TAC at 7.
Defendants Dr. Mitchell, a Psychiatrist, and Licensed Master Social Worker Serravallo
“documented [plaintiff’s] depressive symptoms.” TAC at 7. Plaintiff did not receive “crisis
intervention” or “trauma-focused psychiatric treatment[.]” Id. Plaintiff’s “miscarriage caused
severe psychological trauma.” Id. at 8.
Defendant Probation Officer Deyo “failed to ensure required procedural filings [related
to plaintiff’s probation] were completed.” TAC at 16. As a result, plaintiff “was denied credit
for time served” and “suffered [an] unlawful extension of supervision[.]” Id. at 16-17.
Case 9:24-cv-01460-GTS-PJE Document 60 Filed 04/07/26 Page 6 of 15

7
Liberally construed, the third amended complaint asserts the following Section 1983
claims as allowed by the November 2025 Order: (1) a Fourth Amendment excessive force
claim against defendant Wyant; (2) Fourteenth Amendment medical indifference claims
against defendants Wyant, Younge, Greene County Jail John/Jane Doe Intake Official, Ulster
County Jail John/Jane Doe Intake Official, West, Anderson, Khouri, Mitchell, Serravallo,
Greene County, and Ulster County; and (3) a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim
against defendant Deyo.
The third amended complaint seeks money damages. See TAC at 17. For a more
complete statement of plaintiff's claims, reference is made to the third amended complaint.
E. 	Analysis
1. 	Excessive Force Claim
The legal standard governing Fourth Amendment excessive force claims was
discussed at length in the February 2025 Order and will not be restated herein. See
February 2025 Order at 9-10.
At this stage of the proceeding, and mindful of the Second Circuit's direction that a pro
se plaintiff's pleadings must be liberally construed, see e.g. Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed
Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 191 (2d Cir. 2008), the Court finds that plaintiff's excessive force
claim against defendant Wyant once again survives sua sponte review and requires a
response. In so ruling, the Court expresses no opinion as to whether this claim can withstand
a properly filed dispositive motion.
2. 	Medical Indifference Claims
The legal standard governing Fourteenth Amendment medical indifference claims was
discussed at length in the October 2025 Order and will not be restated herein. See October
Case 9:24-cv-01460-GTS-PJE Document 60 Filed 04/07/26 Page 7 of 15

8
2025 Order at 10-14.
At this stage of the proceeding, and mindful of the Second Circuit's direction that a pro
se plaintiff's pleadings must be liberally construed, the Court finds that plaintiff's medical
indifference claims against defendants Wyant, Younge, Greene County Jail John/Jane Doe
Intake Official, Ulster County Jail John/Jane Doe Intake Official, West, Anderson, Khouri,
Mitchell, and Serravallo survive sua sponte review and require a response. In so ruling, the
Court expresses no opinion as to whether these claims can withstand a properly filed
dispositive motion.
The Court, however, reaches a different conclusion insofar as the third amended
complaint asserts medical indifference claims against Greene County and Ulster County.
Municipal liability is limited under Section 1983 by Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of
City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). In Monell, the Supreme Court found that municipal
liability existed "where that organization's failure to train, or the policies or customs that it has
sanctioned, led to an independent constitutional violation." Segal v. City of New York, 459
F.3d 207, 219 (2d Cir. 2006). Thus, to successfully state a claim for Monell liability, a plaintiff
must "make factual allegations that support a plausible inference that the [alleged]
constitutional violation took place pursuant either to a formal course of action officially
promulgated by the municipality's governing authority or the act of a person with policy
making authority for the municipality." Missel v. Cnty. of Monroe, 351 Fed. App'x 543, 545
(2d Cir. 2009) (citing Vives v. City of N.Y., 524 F.3d 346, 350 (2d Cir. 2008)). "Absent such a
custom, policy, or usage, a municipality cannot be held liable on a respondeat superior basis
for the tort of its employee." Jones v. Town of East Haven, 691 F.3d 72, 80 (2d Cir. 2012);
see also Los Angeles County, Cal. v. Humphries, 562 U.S. 29, 36 (2010) ("[I]n Monell the
Case 9:24-cv-01460-GTS-PJE Document 60 Filed 04/07/26 Page 8 of 15

9
Court held that 'a municipality cannot be held liable' solely for the acts of others, e.g., 'solely
because it employs a tortfeasor.'" (quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 691)).
In this case, plaintiff generically alleges that the medical deprivations she experienced
resulted from inadequate training and “the absence of adequate procedures, training and
supervision[.]” TAC at 15.
As an initial matter, the pleading does not allege any facts which plausibly suggest that
any Greene or Ulster County policymaking official directly participated in any deprivation of
plaintiff’s medical needs. Nor does the pleading allege any facts which plausibly suggest that
Greene or Ulster County had a policy or practice designed to restrict a pregnant detainee’s
access to medical treatment. Moreover, the Court has no basis to infer any such policy or
practice, particularly because, by plaintiff’s own allegations, she was transported to an
outside hospital for evaluation shortly after her arrival at Ulster County Jail (and presumably
was evaluated by a medical professional beforehand in order for this transport to have been
scheduled). See, e.g., Overstreet v. Virts, No. 14-CV-6582, 2019 WL 1331567, at *12
(W.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2019) (“It is well-settled that the mere fact that a municipal policy permits
employees to exercise discretion in the performance of their duties does not give rise to
municipal liability.” (citing, inter alia, Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 481-82
(1986) (“The fact that a particular official ... has discretion in the exercise of particular
functions does not, without more, give rise to municipal liability based on an exercise of that
discretion[.]”))); Fleming v. City of New York, No. 18-CV-4866, 2019 WL 4392522, at *8
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2019) (“Plaintiff's conclusory allegations are ... insufficient to allege that
the Monell Defendants have a longstanding custom, pattern, or practice of ... being
deliberately indifferent to inmates’ medical needs or physical safety.”).
Case 9:24-cv-01460-GTS-PJE Document 60 Filed 04/07/26 Page 9 of 15

10
Furthermore, the third amended complaint does not allege any facts which plausibly
suggest that either Greene County or Ulster County has a history of depriving pregnant
detainees of access to timely or adequate medical treatment such that an implied custom or
policy may be inferred from the alleged wrongdoing by non-policymaking officials. See
Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 62 (2011) (“A pattern of similar constitutional violations
by untrained employees is ‘ordinarily necessary’ to demonstrate deliberate indifference for
purposes of failure to train.”); Davis v. Cnty. of Erie, No. 22-CV-0554, 2022 WL 18215866, at
*7 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2022) (“Although a Monell claim can be based on an unofficial policy,
practice, or custom, such as the claim Plaintiff seeks to allege against the County for failure
to train or supervise, . . . such claim requires an alleged pattern of neglect involving similar
misconduct which allegations are absent in the Proposed Amended Complaint.”), report and
recommendation adopted by 2023 WL 145581 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2023).
Simply put, the third amended complaint asserts municipal liability claims based solely
on conclusory allegations of a custom or policy, which is insufficient to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. See Vassallo v. City of New York, No. 15-CV-7125, 2016 WL
6902478, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2016) (“Here, Plaintiff's allegations consist essentially of a
recitation of the inadequate medical treatment received and generic claims that such
inadequacies were a product of harmful customs and practices or failures to train or
supervise. . . . Such boilerplate allegations are insufficient to state a Monell claim.”); Triano v.
Town of Harrison, 895 F. Supp. 2d 526, 535-37 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (holding that “mere
allegations of a municipal custom or practice of tolerating official misconduct are insufficient
to demonstrate the existence of such a custom unless supported by factual details”).
Case 9:24-cv-01460-GTS-PJE Document 60 Filed 04/07/26 Page 10 of 15

11
Finally, insofar as the third amended complaint may allege that one or more Greene or
Ulster County employees violated plaintiff's constitutional rights, those allegations fail to state
a claim against Greene or Ulster County because a municipality may not be liable on the
basis of respondeat superior. See Monell, 436 U.S. at 691.
In light of the foregoing, plaintiff's Section 1983 claims against Greene and Ulster
County are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
3. 	Due Process Claim
The legal standard governing Fourteenth Amendment due process claims was
discussed at length in the October 2025 Order and will not be restated herein. See October
2025 Order at 14-16.
At this stage of the proceeding, and mindful of the Second Circuit's direction that a pro
se plaintiff's pleadings must be liberally construed, the Court finds that plaintiff's due process
force claim against defendant Deyo once again survives sua sponte review and requires a
response. In so ruling, the Court expresses no opinion as to whether this claim can withstand
a properly filed dispositive motion.
III. 	LETTER REQUEST REGARDING SUMMONSES
After plaintiff filed her third amended complaint, she filed a letter asking the Court to
issue summonses for service on each of the individuals named as defendants in that
pleading. See Dkt. No. 56. Pursuant to this Decision and Order, the Court will direct service
on the defendants who remain in this action. Accordingly, plaintiff’s Letter Request
Regarding Summonses is denied as unnecessary.
Case 9:24-cv-01460-GTS-PJE Document 60 Filed 04/07/26 Page 11 of 15

12
IV. 	FURTHER FILINGS
This case was filed more than a year ago. Since the time of filing, the Court has
invested considerable resources on the matter, having reviewed and issued orders regarding
plaintiff’s complaint, First Motion to Amend, Second Motion to Amend, Motion for
Reconsideration, and now plaintiff’s third amended complaint. Moreover, as a result of
plaintiff’s repeated pleading deficiencies, this case is still only at the early stages of discovery
with respect to two defendants.
In light of the Court’s rulings herein, there are now nine defendants that remain in this
action. Moreover, the vast majority of the claims asserted in the third amended complaint
have survived sua sponte review. The Court will not allow plaintiff to continue wasting
precious judicial resources by modifying or expanding the scope of this action. See, e.g.,
McCray v. Patrolman N.A. Caparco, 761 F. App’x 27, 30 (2d Cir. 2019) (summary order)
(finding no abuse of discretion where district court “refus[ed] to allow an amended complaint
with fifty additional pages of allegations encompassing unrelated events occurring months
and years later than those originally pleaded”); Abascal v. Hilton, No. 04-CV-1401, 2008 WL
268366, at *8 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2008) (Kahn, J., adopting, on de novo review, Report-
Recommendation by Lowe, M.J.) (“Of course, granting a pro se plaintiff an opportunity to
amend is not required where the plaintiff has already been given a chance to amend his
pleading.”), aff'd, 357 F. App'x 388 (2d Cir. 2009); Adams v. N.Y. State Educ. Dep't, No. 08-
CV-5996, 2010 WL 4970011, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2010) (collecting cases and noting that
“[p]resenting again a pleading, written motion or other paper that was adjudicated deficient,
without substantially addressing legal deficiencies previously adjudicated, violates the duty to
Case 9:24-cv-01460-GTS-PJE Document 60 Filed 04/07/26 Page 12 of 15

13
conduct a reasonable inquiry into law” (internal quotation marks omitted)), report and
recommendation adopted as modified 855 F. Supp. 2d 205 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), aff'd sub nom.
Hochstadt v. N.Y. State Educ. Dep't, 547 F. App'x 9 (2d Cir. 2013) (summary order);
Amusement Indus. v. Stern, No. 07-CV-11586, 2014 WL 4460393, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10,
2014) ("Courts regularly deny motions to amend where the moving party seeks to add claims
involving collateral matters, based on different factual allegations and distinct legal theories,
from the claims already at issue in a case."); Mitchell v. Cuomo, No. 17-CV-0892 (TJM/DJS),
2019 WL 1397195, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2019) (adopting Magistrate Judge's
recommendation to deny motion to supplement where "[t]he proposed First Amendment
claims are neither related to nor pertain to the allegations in the operative pleading, thus
providing a basis to deny amendment under Rule 15(d)").
Accordingly, plaintiff is advised that the Court will not (1) consider any further
submissions from her until after the completion of service on the remaining defendants, or (2)
accept any further pleading submissions from her other than a fourth amended complaint that
differs from the third amended complaint only insofar as it identifies the remaining “Doe”
officials in this case. The Court will not permit plaintiff to file another proposed amended
pleading that adds additional claims or defendants to this action, and any submission of such
a pleading will be stricken from the record. Furthermore, plaintiff is cautioned that the
continued filing of meritless motions and requests that impose an unnecessary burden on this
Court may result in the imposition of sanctions, including a fine and/or the revocation of her in
forma pauperis status.
V. 	CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, it is hereby
Case 9:24-cv-01460-GTS-PJE Document 60 Filed 04/07/26 Page 13 of 15

14
ORDERED that the third amended complaint (Dkt. No. 55) is accepted for filing as the
operative pleading; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk add the following officials to the docket as defendants: (1)
EMT Younge; (2) Greene County Intake Official John/Jane Doe; (3) Greene County Intake
Official John/Jane Doe; (4) Nurse Practitioner Juliet West; (5) Nurse Kathy Anderson; (6) Dr.
Khouri; (7) Dr. Mitchell; and (8) Licensed Master Social Worker Serravallo; and it is further
ORDERED that the following Section 1983 claims SURVIVE sua sponte review and
require a response: (1) plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment excessive force claim against defendant
Wyant; (2) plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment medical indifference claims against defendants
Wyant, Younge, Greene County Jail John/Jane Doe Intake Official, Ulster County Jail
John/Jane Doe Intake Official, West, Anderson, Khouri, Mitchell, and Serravallo; and (3)
plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against defendant Deyo; and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiff's remaining Section 1983 claims are DISMISSED without
prejudice and without leave to renew pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and it is further
ORDERED that upon receipt from plaintiff of six copies of her third amended
complaint, the Clerk shall issue summonses and forward them, along with the copies of the
third amended complaint, to the United States Marshal for service upon defendants Younge,
West, Anderson, Khouri, Mitchell, and Serravallo; and it is further
ORDERED that upon the completion of service, a response to the third amended
complaint be filed by the remaining defendants, or their counsel, as provided for in the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and it is further
Case 9:24-cv-01460-GTS-PJE Document 60 Filed 04/07/26 Page 14 of 15

15
ORDERED that plaintiff’s Letter Request Regarding Summonses is DENIED as
unnecessary; and it is further
ORDERED that all discovery in this case is STAYED pending the completion of
service and a response to the third amended complaint; and it is further
ORDERED that the Court will not consider any further submissions from plaintiff until
after the completion of service on the remaining defendants, or accept any further pleading
submissions from her other than a fourth amended complaint that differs from the third
amended complaint only insofar as it identifies the remaining “Doe” officials in this case.
Plaintiff is further advised that her failure to timely and properly name the remaining “Doe”
defendants will result in the dismissal of the claims against these officials pursuant to Rules
4(m) and Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Northern District of New
York Local Rule 41.2(a); and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Decision and Order on the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 7, 2026
Syracuse, NY
Case 9:24-cv-01460-GTS-PJE Document 60 Filed 04/07/26 Page 15 of 15