Saxton v. The State of New York et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
THOMAS SAXTON,
Plaintiff,
V.
THE STATE OF NEW YORK, et al.,
Defendants.
APPEARANCES:
THOMAS SAXTON
Plaintiff, pro se
24-8-0622
Upstate Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 2001
Malone, NY 12953
ANNE M. NARDACCI
United States District Judge
I. 	INTRODUCTION
DECISION AND ORDER
9:25-CV-1750
(AMN/PJE)
OF COUNSEL:
On December 15, 2025, pro se plaintiff Thomas Saxton ("plaintiff'') commenced this
action by submitting a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983"), with an
application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). 	Dkt. No. 1 ("Compl."); Dkt. No. 6 ("IFP
Application"). The complaint asserted claims related to plaintiff's confinement in the custody
of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS") at
Mohawk Correctional Facility ("Mohawk C.F."). 	See generally Compl.
By Decision and Order filed on January 26, 2026 (the "January 2026 Order"), this
Court granted plaintiff's IFP Application and reviewed the sufficiency of the complaint in
Case 9:25-cv-01750-AMN-PJE Document 12 Filed 04/06/26 Page 1 of 11

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Dkt. No. 8. 	On the
basis of that review, the Court dismissed plaintiffs complaint for failure to state a claim. 	Id.
In light of plaintiffs prose status, the Court provided plaintiff with an opportunity to amend his
complaint. 	Id.
On February 23, 2026, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. 	Dkt. No. 11 ("Am.
Campi.").
II. 	SUFFICIENCY OF AMENDED COMPLAINT
A. Legal Standard
The legal standard governing the dismissal of a pleading for failure to state a claim
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(8) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A was discussed at length in the
January 2026 Order and will not be restated in this Decision and Order. 	See Dkt. No. 8 at 2-
4.
B. Summary of Amended Complaint
With the amended complaint, plaintiff identifies the following new defendants: 	Mohawk
C.F., ORC J. Cieslak ("Cieslak"), Nurse Jane Doe #1 ("Nurse Doe 1"), Nurse Jane Doe #2
("Nurse Doe 2"), and Nurse Supervisor G. Francisco ("Francisco"). 1 See generally Am.
Campi. The complaint also includes claims against previously named defendants
Superintendent Montegary ("Montegary"), Superintendent Lowe ("Lowe"), Henderson, Doctor
Shabbir ("Shabbir"), and Nurse Tracy Stevens ("Stevens"). 	See id. 	The amended complaint
does not include any claims against the State of New York, a defendant previously named in
the original complaint. 2 See id.
1 The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the Docket Report to include these defendants.
2 The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the Docket Report to terminate this defendant.
2
Case 9:25-cv-01750-AMN-PJE Document 12 Filed 04/06/26 Page 2 of 11

1. 	Issues Related to Jaw
On February 28, 2024, a nurse at Elmira Correctional Facility noticed a lump on
plaintitrs left jawbone and "made a note" that plaintiff needed an ultrasound. Am. Campi. at
4. 	On an unknown date, plaintiff was transferred to Mohawk C.F. 	Id. 	Plaintiff "made medical
staff," Shabirr, and "nurses" "aware" that the "lump" was impacting plaintitrs left ear. 	Id.
Plaintiff wrote several grievances "making Cieslak (Mohawk Grievance Official) aware of the
situation." Am. Campi. at 4. 	Plaintitrs grievances were denied. 	Id. 	Plaintiff appealed to
Montegary and Lowe, but the Cieslak's decision was affirmed. 	Id.
Plaintiff "attempted to correspond" with Henderson, an employee from the Department
of Health, about the situation and his need for "testing." Am. Campi. at 4. 	Henderson did not
"write [him] back." Id. 	Plaintiff "finally spoke to her in person" and Henderson explained that,
due to "the strike," "we are only sending out one medical trip a day." 	Id.
2. 	Issues Related to Urological Pain
On or around August 15, 2024, plaintiff experienced severe pain and difficulty urinating
and swollen genitals. Am. Campi. at 5. 	Plaintiff saw the "medical staff several times" and
was sent to Rome Hospital for evaluation. 	Id. 	Plaintiff was diagnosed with a rash and treated
with ointment. 	Id. When plaintiff returned to Mohawk C.F., he continued to suffer from pain,
swelling, and difficulty urinating. 	Id. 	Plaintiff complained for "months" to Stevens, Shabbir,
and Francisco, but his complaints were "dismissed." Am. Campi. at 5.
On or around November 10, 2024, plaintiff began to experience bleeding from his
penis during bowel movements. Am. Campi. at 5. Weeks later, plaintiff "was seen by
urology" and "sent for multiple tests." 	Id. The urologist told plaintiff that he needed to
undergo a cystoscopy and ordered the test as "urgent." Id. 	Due to the "illegal job action," the
3
Case 9:25-cv-01750-AMN-PJE Document 12 Filed 04/06/26 Page 3 of 11

procedure was delayed. 	Id. 	Plaintiff "brought up all of these issues" with Lowe, Henderson,
and Cieslak "through the proper grievance procedures." Am. Compl. at 5-6.
On August 12, 2025, plaintiff underwent the cystoscopy. Am. Compl. at 6. 	To date,
plaintiff has not had a follow up from the procedure. 	Id. 	Plaintiff has "been put on 2 different
medications without being evaluated." Id.
3. 	Issues Related to Knee
On or around February 21, 2025, plaintiff fell exiting the shower in 56B Dorm. Am.
Compl. at 6. 	Plaintiff felt his knee "crack" and could not put weight on it. 	Id. 	Plaintiff was
taken to medical and transported to Rome Hospital. 	Id. X-rays were negative. 	Id. 	When
plaintiff asked for an MRI, the doctor explained that "the end result would be the same." Am.
Compl. at 6. 	Plaintiff received crutches and a follow up appointment was scheduled with an
orthopedist within two weeks. 	Id.
When plaintiff returned to Mohawk C.F., Nurse Doe 2 confiscated his crutches and
gave him a short walking cane. Am. Compl. at 6. This caused plaintiff "much pain due to
bearing any weight on [his] left knee would cause it to pop out of the socket." 	Id. 	"Months"
later, plaintiff was seen by a specialist. 	Id. at 7. 	The orthopedist ordered an MRI. 	Id. The
MRI was delayed and rescheduled several times. Am. Compl. at 6. 	Plaintiff "brought this up
to all named defendants through several channels including the grievance process." 	Id.
Construing the amended complaint liberally 3, plaintiff alleges the following: (1) Eighth
Amendment deliberate medical indifference; and (2) state law negligence and medical
3 The Court is mindful of the Second Circuit's instruction that a pleading by a prose litigant must be construed
liberally and interpreted to raise the strongest arguments that it suggests. See, e.g., Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed
Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 191 (2d Cir. 2008) ("On occasions too numerous to count, we have reminded district
courts" that a prose plaintiff's pleadings must be construed liberally); Phillips v. Girdich, 408 F.3d 124, 130 (2d
Cir. 2005) ("We leave it for the district court to determine what other claims, if any, [plaintiff] has raised. In so
doing, the court's imagination should be limited only by [plaintiff's] factual allegations, not by the legal claims set
4
Case 9:25-cv-01750-AMN-PJE Document 12 Filed 04/06/26 Page 4 of 11

malpractice claims. 	See generally Am. Campi. 	Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary
damages. 	Id. at 8.
C. Analysis
1. Eleventh Amendment
The law related to Eleventh Amendment was discussed in the January 2026 Order
and will not be restated herein. 	See Dkt. No. 8 at 7. 	For the reasons discussed in the
January 2026 Order, the Eleventh Amendment bars plaintiffs § 1983 claims for monetary
damages against Mohawk C.F. 	See Simmons v. Gowanda Corr. Facility, No. 13-CV-0647,
2013 WL 3340646, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. July 1, 2013) ("the New York State Department of
Corrections and [the named correctional facility] enjoy the same Eleventh Amendment
immunity from suit in federal court as enjoyed by the state itself') (quoting Posr. v. Court
Officer Shield No. 207, 180 F.3d 409, 411 (2d Cir. 1999)).
Accordingly, plaintiffs claims against Mohawk C.F. are dismissed.
2. 	Eighth Amendment Claims
The law related to Eighth Amendment deliberate medical indifference claims was
discussed in the January 2026 Order and will not be restated herein. 	See Dkt. No. 8 at 8-9.
a. 	Jaw and Urological Issues
Even assuming, for the purposes of this review, that plaintiffs medical issues are
sufficiently serious to satisfy the objective prong of an Eighth Amendment analysis, the
amended complaint lacks facts to plausibly suggest that any named defendant was
deliberately indifferent to the aforementioned conditions.
out in his pleadings."); Burgos v. Hopkins, 14 F.3d 787, 790 (2d Cir. 1994) ("[W]e read [a prose litigant's]
supporting papers liberally, and will interpret them to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.").
5
Case 9:25-cv-01750-AMN-PJE Document 12 Filed 04/06/26 Page 5 of 11

Initially, the Court notes that the pleading does not include any facts to suggest that
any named defendant personally provided plaintiff with medical treatment or care for his jaw
or urological issues. While plaintiff identifies Nurse Doe 1 as a defendant in the caption and
list of parties, Nurse Doe 1 is not referenced anywhere in the body of the amended complaint.
Rather, plaintiff attempts to impose supervisory liability upon Shabirr, Henderson, Stevens,
and Francisco claiming he "made" these defendants "aware" of his various medical issues
and that he complained "for months."
The law related to personal involvement and supervisory defendants was discussed in
the January 2026 Order and will not be restated herein. 	Dkt. No. 8 at 6-7. 	Here, the pleading
lacks any facts suggesting that any individual action by any supervisory defendant violated
plaintitrs constitutional rights. While plaintiff summarily alleges that defendants were "aware"
of his "issues," the pleading is devoid of facts related to how they became aware, i.e., when
plaintiff notified defendants of his issues, through what means he notified defendants,
defendants' response, if any, to his complaints. 	Plaintiff claims he personally spoke with
Henderson. 	However, the pleading lacks any facts related to when this conversation
occurred or where it occurred. 	Moreover, the facts do not plausibly suggest that Henderson
possessed any medical training, that Henderson was personally involved with plaintitrs
medical care, or that Henderson was vested with any authority to order or dictate plaintitrs
medical treatment at Mohawk C.F.
Plaintiff also attempts to assert Eighth Amendment claims against Ciezlak, Montegary,
and Lowe based upon their receipt of "grievances." Again, the amended complaint lacks
facts related when the grievances were filed, how they were filed, the frequency of the
grievances, who they were filed against, or the sum and substance of the grievances. 	Even
6
Case 9:25-cv-01750-AMN-PJE Document 12 Filed 04/06/26 Page 6 of 11

assuming defendants received the grievances, this fact alone is insufficient to plausibly
suggest that defendants were personally involved in the alleged wrongdoing. 	See Fabrizio v.
Smith, No. 9:20-CV-0011 (GTS/ML), 2021 WL2211206, at*10 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2021) ("In
the Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Mauro and Smith were personally involved because they
failed to remedy ongoing First Amendment violations after becoming aware of the retaliation
through grievances and appeals .. 	In light of Tangreti, Plaintiff's attempt to plead personal
involvement based upon the denial of a grievance and/or appeals, lacks merit because it
does not plausibly suggest '[t]he factors necessary to establish' a First Amendment retaliation
claim."), report and recommendation adopted by 2021 WL 2211023 (N.D.N.Y. June 1, 2021);
Hendricks v. Mallozzi, No. 9:20-CV-1035 (MAD/ML), 2022 WL 1129887, at *8 (N.D.N.Y. Jan.
14, 2022) (reasoning that the plaintiff's allegations against the defendants related solely to
their denial and/or affirmation of the denial of grievances were insufficient to plausibly
suggest the personal involvement), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 856885
(N.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2022).
Despite being afforded an opportunity to amend his complaint, plaintiff has failed to
assert a viable Eighth Amendment claim related to these medical issues. Without any
supporting facts, plaintiff's conclusory allegations that defendants were aware of his "issues"
and complaints are insufficient to suggest a colorable § 1983 claim against these defendants.
Consequently, plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims, related to these medical issues, are
dismissed.
b. 	Knee Issues
Plaintiff alleges that Nurse Doe 2 was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs
when she confiscated his crutches and, instead, provided plaintiff with a "short walking cane."
7
Case 9:25-cv-01750-AMN-PJE Document 12 Filed 04/06/26 Page 7 of 11

An Eighth Amendment claim may arise where a defendant "intentionally interfered with [a
plaintitrs] prescribed medical treatment by confiscating his crutches and cane without cause."
Rosales v. Coughlin, 10 F.Supp.2d 261,269 (W.D.N.Y. 1998) (denying the defendant's
motion for summary judgment where the record established that the defendant repeatedly
took the plaintitrs cane and interfered with his prescribed course of treatment) (citing
Covington v. Westchester County Jail, No. 96 Civ. 7551, 1997 WL 580697 (S.D.N.Y. Sept.
18, 1997)). 	However, a mere disagreement with the prescribed course of treatment does not
support an Eighth Amendment claim. 	See Harding v. Kuhlmann, 588 F.Supp. 1315, 1316
(S.D.N.Y. 1984) (dismissing the plaintitrs Eighth Amendment claim based upon the decision
to provide an "ankle band" and "medical restriction" instead of providing crutches or a cane)
aff'd, 762 F.2d 990 (2d Cir. 1985); see also Levo/av. Fischer, No. 9:09-CV-0833, 2010 WL
11602538, at *10 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2010) (noting that the plaintitrs "issues" with the
decision to move him crutches to a cane constitute a "disagreement" with treatment).
Here, even assuming plaintiff suffered from a sufficiently serious medical condition related to
his knee, plaintiff does not allege that Nurse Doe 2 intentionally interfered with his treatment
or ignored his knee issues. The amended complaint lacks facts including when Nurse Doe 2
provided a cane instead of crutches, whether plaintiff interacted with Nurse Doe 2, whether
plaintiff spoke with Nurse Doe 2, or any other facts surrounding the circumstances that led to
Nurse Doe 2 providing a cane instead of crutches. 	"Whether a cane was a better solution
than crutches is beside the point, because disputes over the choice of care - as opposed to
the provision of some care - do not rise to the level of a deliberate indifference claim." 	Gibbs
v. Pillai, No. 3:20-CV-01119, 2024 WL 1175533, at *6 (D. Conn. Mar. 19, 2024) (reasoning
that the defendant's decision to provide some sort of walking aid indicates that he was not
8
Case 9:25-cv-01750-AMN-PJE Document 12 Filed 04/06/26 Page 8 of 11

withholding treatment), appeal dismissed sub nom. Gibbs v. Connecticut Dep't of Corr., No.
24-891, 2025 WL 2828722 (2d Cir. Apr. 16, 2025).
Accordingly, plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claim against Nurse Doe 2 is dismissed for
failure to state a claim. To the extent that plaintiff attempts to assert claims against "all
defendants" because he made them "aware" of his knee issues through the "grievances
process," for the reasons set forth supra, those claims are also dismissed.
3. State Law Claims
In the January 2026 Order, the Court dismissed plaintiffs state law claims holding:
District courts have supplemental jurisdiction over all state law
claims that are so related to federal claims over which they exercise
original jurisdiction 	that they 	form 	part 	of the 	same 	case 	or
controversy under Article Ill 	of the Constitution. 	28 	U.S.C. 	§
1367(a) (2000). 	The state law claims are parallel to plaintiffs
federal claims for deliberate medical indifference. 	Because those
claims are dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the state law claims at this early stage of the case.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Valencia v. Sung M. Lee, 316 F.3d 299
(2d Cir. 2003).
Dkt. No. 8 at 9-10.
Despite being afforded the opportunity to amend his complaint, the amended pleading
does not remedy the deficiencies in the state claims. 	For the reasons set forth in the January
2026 Order, plaintiffs state law claims are dismissed.
Ordinarily, a court should not dismiss a complaint filed by a pro se litigant without
granting leave to amend at least once "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 ); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) ("The court should freely give leave when justice so
requires.").
9
Case 9:25-cv-01750-AMN-PJE Document 12 Filed 04/06/26 Page 9 of 11

An opportunity to amend is not required, however, where "the problem with [the
plaintitrs] causes of action is substantive" such that "better pleading will not cure it." 	Cuoco v.
Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000); see also Corlee Indus. Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P.,
949 F .2d 42, 48 (2d Cir.1991) ("Of course, where a plaintiff is unable to allege any fact
sufficient to support its claim, a complaint should be dismissed with prejudice."). 	Stated
differently, "[w]here it appears that granting leave to amend is unlikely to be productive, ... it
is not an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend." Ruffolo v. Oppenheimer & Co., 987
F.2d 129, 131 (2d Cir.1993); accord, Brown v. Peters, No. 95-CV-1641, 1997 WL 599355, at
*1 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 1997).
In this instance, plaintiff has already been provided one opportunity to amend his
complaint. The deficiencies with his original complaint, identified by the court in the January
2026 Order, have not been cured with the amended complaint. Accordingly, the Court finds
that any further amendment would be futile.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, it is hereby
ORDERED that the amended complaint (Dkt. No. 11) is ACCEPTED for filing and is
the operative pleading in this action; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall amend the Docket Report consistent with
this Decision and Order; and it is further
ORDERED that the amended complaint (Dkt. No. 11) is DISMISSED without
prejudice in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); and
it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly; and it is further
10
Case 9:25-cv-01750-AMN-PJE Document 12 Filed 04/06/26 Page 10 of 11

ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this Decision and Order on
plaintiff in accordance with the Local Rules of Practice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 3, 2026
Albany, NY
~1Yl~ !l&(h~
Anne M. Nardacci
U.S. District Judge
11
Case 9:25-cv-01750-AMN-PJE Document 12 Filed 04/06/26 Page 11 of 11