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)
GREENE COUNTY SUPPORT
COLLECTION UNIT 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 alleged that multiple attorneys,
case workers, and others conspired to deny him certain parental and economic rights. Id. Along
with his complaint, plaintiff moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”).
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 26 Filed 04/24/26 Page 1 of 5

- 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 did not lodge objections to the R&R. Instead, plaintiff filed: (1) an amended com-
plaint; (2) a motion for a preliminary injunction; (3) an “emergency” motion to compel and for a
protective 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.
On February 23, 2026, after conducting a de novo review, this Court accepted and adopted
Judge Stewart’s R&R. Dkt. No. 15. Because most of plaintiff’s other filings were premature, his
various motions were denied and his requests and interrogatories were ordered stricken from the
docket. Id. Although plaintiff’s amended complaint was also prematurely filed (since the R&R
permitting him to partially re-plead had not yet been adopted), the Court declined to strike it. Id.
Instead, the Court adopted the R&R and gave 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.
Dkt. No. 15. 	As the Court explained, if plaintiff filed another pleading within that thirty-day
window, the newest pleading would be referred to Judge Stewart for further action as appropriate.
Id. However, if plaintiff elected not to file another pleading within that thirty-day time frame, the
Case 1:25-cv-01714-AJB-DJS Document 26 Filed 04/24/26 Page 2 of 5

- 3 -
current “amended complaint” (the one that was prematurely filed at Dkt. No. 7) would be referred
to Judge Stewart for review. Dkt. No. 16.
Thereafter, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. Dkt. No. 16. But it was initially
unsigned. Id. Plaintiff soon re-filed a signed copy of this pleading. Dkt. No. 19. Plaintiff also
filed an unsigned letter motion seeking to stay proceedings in state court, Dkt. No. 17, an “emer-
gency” motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, Dkt. No. 18, and a
second motion to stay proceeding in state court that appears to be similar to the first one but is
signed this time around, Dkt. No. 20. This Court denied plaintiff’s emergency motion but left the
second amended complaint referred to Judge Stewart for an initial review. Dkt. No. 21.
On March 30, 2026, Judge Stewart reviewed plaintiff’s signed second amended complaint,
Dkt. No. 19, and, based on his initial review, advised in a second R&R that this pleading be dis-
missed without further leave to amend. 	Dkt. No. 22. 	As Judge Stewart explained, plaintiff’s
claims remained deficient for substantially the same reasons that were previously explained in the
first R&R. 	Id. 	And because plaintiff’s claims remained entirely deficient even though he had
previously been given instructions about pleading requirements and partial leave to amend, Judge
Stewart recommended against further re-pleading. Id.
Plaintiff has lodged objections. Dkt. No. 25. Plaintiff has also filed another motion to stay
proceedings, Dkt. No. 23, and a “corrected” amended complaint, Dkt. No. 24. In his objections,
plaintiff contends that he has recorded certain state-court judges telling him that “constitutional
rights don’t apply” in their courtrooms and complains broadly about the acts and omissions of
judicial officers, employees, court staff, and attorneys involved in the family-court matter. 	See
Dkt. No. 25. 	Likewise, plaintiff’s “corrected” amended complaint names state-court judicial
Case 1:25-cv-01714-AJB-DJS Document 26 Filed 04/24/26 Page 3 of 5

- 4 -
officers, court-appointed attorneys, and reasserts claims against county employees serving in child
protective services roles. See Dkt. No. 24.
Upon de novo review, Judge Stewart’s second R&R is accepted and will be adopted. See
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This Court previously cautioned plaintiff that this case looked broadly
similar to a previous civil action that he had filed called Gammons v. Cody, 1:25-CV-941
(N.D.N.Y.) (AJB/DJS). As this Court explained at the time, that action had been dismissed for
some of the same legal deficiencies that have been identified in this action. See Dkt. No. 15. And
as this Court cautioned plaintiff, alleged misconduct by private parties and judicial officers and
staffers occurring in connection with ongoing domestic relations matters in state court (such as
entitlement to child support payments) are almost always going to be a matter for the state courts
to adjudicate. See id.
To be sure, it is possible in certain situations to assert an actionable § 1983 claim against
state or local employees engaged in official action (and in very narrow circumstances, even judicial
officers). But none of plaintiff’s filings give any indication that the conduct about which he has
complained might be actionable under § 1983. To the contrary, plaintiff’s recent spate of filings
confirm that he does not have any plausible claims against any of the named defendants involved
in the ongoing state-court matter. Accordingly, the second R&R is accepted and will be adopted.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. The Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 22) is ACCEPTED;
2. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend; and
3. Plaintiff’s motions (Dkt. Nos. 17, 20, 23) are DENIED.
Case 1:25-cv-01714-AJB-DJS Document 26 Filed 04/24/26 Page 4 of 5

- 5 -
The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motions, enter a judgment ac-
cordingly, and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 24, 2026
Utica, New York.
Case 1:25-cv-01714-AJB-DJS Document 26 Filed 04/24/26 Page 5 of 5