Sherwood v. Mazzarella et al

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
TADD A. SHERWOOD,
Plaintiff,
6:25-CV-1825
v. 	(AMN/DJS)
DANIEL P. MAZZARELLA, et al.,
Defendants.
APPEARANCES:
TADD A. SHERWOOD
Plaintiff, Pro Se
Oneonta, 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 Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Dkt. No. 1, Compl., p. 10.
Plaintiff has filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. No. 6, which
this Court has granted by separate order. 	The Complaint sets forth an intensely fact-
specific recitation of events between 2022 and 2025, involving numerous encounters with
named members of the New York State Police which resulted in Plaintiff being arrested
on several occasions. See generally Compl. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that he
Case 6:25-cv-01825-AMN-DJS Document 11 Filed 04/07/26 Page 1 of 6

- 2 -
was unlawfully stopped and searched, improperly questioned, and that a private citizen
was enlisted to obtain evidence against him. Id.
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 6:25-cv-01825-AMN-DJS Document 11 Filed 04/07/26 Page 2 of 6

- 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
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 . .
. ;
Case 6:25-cv-01825-AMN-DJS Document 11 Filed 04/07/26 Page 3 of 6

- 4 -
(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). 	Twelve of the individuals
named by Plaintiff as Defendants have no specific factual allegations made against them
in the Complaint. 	Those individuals, Skinner, Hicks, Parslow, Marshall, Greenman,
Burkert, Brown, Marinelli, Gombosi, Bajrektarevic, Casale, and Asbach, are not alleged
to have engaged in any specific wrongdoing. 	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. The Complaint, therefore, should be dismissed
as to them.
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). 	Because Plaintiff may be able to make allegations against these
Case 6:25-cv-01825-AMN-DJS Document 11 Filed 04/07/26 Page 4 of 6

- 5 -
Defendants, the Court recommends that he be permitted to amend his Complaint to do so
if he wishes.
The Second Circuit has made clear that “a court is ordinarily obligated to afford a
special solicitude to pro se litigants.” 	Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 101 (2d Cir.
2010) 	“This special solicitude most often consists of liberal construction of pleadings,
motion papers, and appellate briefs.” 	Rosa v. Doe, 86 F.4th 1001, 1007 (2d Cir. 2023)
(internal quotation and citation omitted). As a result, this Court should “afford a pro se
litigant ‘special solicitude’ by interpreting a complaint filed pro se ‘to raise the strongest
claims that it suggests.’” 	Hardaway v. Hartford Pub. Works Dep’t, 879 F.3d 486, 489
(2d Cir. 2018) (quoting Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 122 (2d Cir. 2011)). In light of
these standards, the Complaint contains sufficient allegations to warrant a responsive
pleading from the remaining Defendants. The scope of review here is limited to whether
Plaintiff has alleged an arguable claim, not whether Plaintiff can ultimately prevail. Nor
does this Order address whether Plaintiff’s Complaint would be sufficient to avoid
dismissal upon the filing of a proper motion.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, it is hereby
RECOMMENDED, that Plaintiff’s Complaint be DISMISSED as set forth
above, but otherwise permitted to proceed; and it is
Case 6:25-cv-01825-AMN-DJS Document 11 Filed 04/07/26 Page 5 of 6

- 6 -
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.,
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: April 7, 2026
Albany, New York
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 6:25-cv-01825-AMN-DJS Document 11 Filed 04/07/26 Page 6 of 6