Hanyon v. The State of New York

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________
STEVEN HANYON,
Plaintiff,
-v- 	3:26-CV-168 (AJB/CBF)
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Defendant.
_____________________________________
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
STEVEN HANYON
Plaintiff, Pro Se
22 Weber Road
Port Crane, NY 13833
Hon. Anthony Brindisi, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
On February 3, 2026, pro se plaintiff Steven Hanyon (“plaintiff”) filed this civil action
against defendant The State of New York (“defendant”). Dkt. No. 1. Along with his complaint,
plaintiff also: (1) moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”), Dkt. Nos. 2,
6; (2) filed a letter seeking an order of protection, Dkt. No. 4; (3) filed an affidavit in support of
his complaint, Dkt. No. 9; (4) submitted a letter stating that he was unsure whether he filed his
affidavit correctly, Dkt. No. 10; (5) filed an amended motion stating, inter alia, that he “witnessed
the lord’s Judgment” and “would like to run for President,” Dkt. No. 12; (6) submitted a letter
sharing his thoughts on the value of his litigation conduct in this forum, Dkt. No. 13; (7) filed an
amended petition sharing updates about the status of an apparent state-court criminal proceeding
against him, Dkt. No. 14; (8) submitted a letter seeking updates about the status of this litigation,
Case 3:26-cv-00168-AJB-CBF Document 23 Filed 04/30/26 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
Dkt. No. 15; (9) filed a copy of some kind of state administrative hearing request, Dkt. No. 16; and
(10) lodged pre-emptive objections to the dismissal of this litigation, Dkt. No. 17.
On April 13, 2026, U.S. Magistrate Judge Carla B. Freedman granted plaintiff’s IFP Ap-
plication and advised by Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) that plaintiff’s complaint be dis-
missed. Dkt. No. 18. As Judge Freedman explained, plaintiff’s complaint failed to comply with
Rules 8, 10, and 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. Although Judge Freedman noted
that plaintiff had repeatedly been cautioned about the need to comply with these basic pleading
requirements, she concluded that—in light of his pro se status—leave to amend might nevertheless
be warranted. See id.
Plaintiff has lodged objections and submitted other filings using the Court’s electronic fil-
ing portal (“MFT”). Dkt. Nos. 19, 20, 21, 22. In those filings, plaintiff explains that he objects to
his complaint being dismissed because he “should be able to leave the Driveway to support [his]
Country and live off from [his] Dreams,” Dkt. No. 19, appears to accuse unnamed actors of con-
spiring to violate his civil rights in violation of federal criminal law, Dkt. No. 20, contends that
defendants do not have immunity because “all they do is practice fraud,” Dkt. No. 21, and states
that certain state-court charges against him were thrown out but somehow reinstated by an entity
that is not named as a party to this litigation, Dkt. No. 22.
Upon de novo review, Judge Freedman’s well-reasoned R&R is accepted and will be
adopted in all respects save one: there is no need to permit plaintiff an opportunity to amend be-
cause there is absolutely no indication that permitting amendment would be productive under these
circumstances. See, e.g., Forjone v. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, 414 F. Supp. 3d 292, 303 (N.D.N.Y.
2019) (cleaned up) (“Although district courts in this circuit are generally reluctant to dismiss a pro
se plaintiff’s action without permitting leave to replead, the Second Circuit has explained that it is
Case 3:26-cv-00168-AJB-CBF Document 23 Filed 04/30/26 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
nevertheless appropriate to do so in cases where it appears that granting leave to amend is unlikely
to be productive.”).
Plaintiff, acting pro se, has filed at least six previous civil actions in this district. Hanyon
v. Express Auto Credit Corp. et al., 3:23-CV-1640 (MAD/ML); Hanyon v. The United States et
al., 3:25-CV-212 (BKS/TWD); Hanyon v. Express Auto Credit Corp. et al., 3:25-CV-424
(BKS/DJS); Hanyon v. LinkedIn, 3:25-CV-472 (AJB/MJK); Hanyon v. Broome County Correc-
tions et al., 9:25-CV-1315 (ECC/ML); Hanyon v. Express Auto Credit Corp. et al., 3:26-CV-91
(BKS/DJS).
With the exception of one case that was dismissed on Rule 41(b) grounds because plaintiff
repeatedly failed to comply with court orders, the presiding judicial officers in each one of these
previous actions have reviewed plaintiff’s initial filings, found them to be deficient, patiently ex-
plained the basic pleading requirements necessary to pursue a civil action in federal court, and
permitted plaintiff at least one opportunity to amend.
In each instance, plaintiff has either failed to file an amended pleading or submitted an
amended pleading that remained deficient in various respects. What’s more, in each of these cases
plaintiff has taken advantage of the Court’s MFT system to litter the civil dockets with meritless
letters and irrelevant (and often inscrutable) filings.
Enough is enough. 	Plaintiff’s filings in this action—just as in those other actions—are
plainly meritless. Plaintiff’s litigation conduct has led to the unnecessary expenditure of judicial
resources, both in reviewing each of his pleadings and in trying to make heads or tails out of all
his other accompanying filings. Those resources could be better spent on screening possibly mer-
itorious complaints from other unrepresented litigants. Indeed, plaintiff’s litigation behavior bor-
ders on abusive, since his flagrant misuse of the Court’s MFT system has required Clerk’s Office
Case 3:26-cv-00168-AJB-CBF Document 23 Filed 04/30/26 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
staff to review each of his many submissions before determining where and how to docket them
(and in which of his cases) on the Court’s CM/ECF system.
In short, leave to amend will be denied and this action will be dismissed without any further
proceedings. Plaintiff is cautioned that civil actions filed in federal court must conform with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rules 8 and 10, and with the Local Rules of Practice
promulgated by each judicial district, including the Northern District of New York. 	Plaintiff is
further cautioned that the IFP statute requires a court to dismiss a case “at any time” if it deter-
mines, inter alia, that the action is “frivolous or malicious.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Finally,
plaintiff should take note that under our Local Rules a litigant’s misuse of the MFT system “may
result in the [offending] document being stricken from the docket or terminating the filer’s MFT
submission privileges.” N.D.N.Y. L.R. 10.1(c)(3).
Further lawsuits filed in this federal judicial district that continue to violate these basic
expectations will be sua sponte dismissed and may be referred to the Chief Judge for additional
action.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. The Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 18) is ACCEPTED as modified;
2. Plaintiff’s pending motions (Dkt. Nos. 12, 22) are DENIED as moot; and
3. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend.
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 30, 2026
Utica, New York.
Case 3:26-cv-00168-AJB-CBF Document 23 Filed 04/30/26 Page 4 of 4