Lewis v. Paymaster Payroll Systems, Inc. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SCOTT PHILLIP LEWIS,
Plaintiff,
- v - 	Civ. No. 8:24-CV-121
(MAD/DJS)
PAYMASTER PAYROLL SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
SCOTT PHILLIP LEWIS
Plaintiff Pro Se
Lake Placid, New York 12946
DANIEL J. STEWART
United States Magistrate Judge
REPORT-RECOMMENDATION and ORDER1
On February 29, 2024, this Court issued a Report-Recommendation that the
Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, in this matter be dismissed. 	Dkt. No. 7. 	The District Court
adopted the Report-Recommendation and granted Plaintiff leave to file an Amended
Complaint. 	Dkt. No. 9. 	The Amended Complaint was filed and is before the
undersigned for review. Dkt. No. 17, Am. Compl.
1 This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to L.R. 72.3(d).
Case 8:24-cv-00121-MAD-DJS Document 20 Filed 03/30/26 Page 1 of 6

2
I. SUFFICIENCY OF THE COMPLAINT
A. 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). Thus, even if a plaintiff meets the financial
criteria to commence an action in forma pauperis, it is the court’s responsibility to
determine whether the plaintiff may properly maintain the complaint that he filed in this
District before the court may permit the plaintiff to proceed with this action in forma
pauperis. See id. 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) (internal citations omitted). 	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 defendant is liable for the misconduct
Case 8:24-cv-00121-MAD-DJS Document 20 Filed 03/30/26 Page 2 of 6

3
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.” Id. 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).
B. Analysis of the Complaint
The allegations in the Amended Complaint concern the alleged denial of services
to Plaintiff regarding assistance with filing tax returns. See generally Am. Compl. The
Amended Complaint should be dismissed.
As was true with the initial Complaint, Plaintiff seeks only monetary damages.
Id. at pp. 12-13. Plaintiff’s two stated causes of action allege violations of the Americans
Case 8:24-cv-00121-MAD-DJS Document 20 Filed 03/30/26 Page 3 of 6

4
with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). 	Id. at pp. 8-13. 	They challenge access to public
accommodations, id. at ¶¶ 53 & 84, and thus assert claims under Title III of the ADA.
Sookul v. Fresh Clean Threads, Inc., 754 F. Supp. 3d 395, 404 (S.D.N.Y. 2024). The
Second Circuit has made clear that “[m]onetary relief . . . is not available to private
individuals under Title III of the ADA.” 	Powell v. Nat’l Bd. of Med. Examiners, 364
F.3d 79, 86 (2d Cir. 2004), opinion corrected, 511 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2004). 	“Since
Plaintiff seeks only monetary relief with respect to his ADA claims, the complaint fails
to state a plausible claim for relief under Title III of the ADA.” 	Vale v. Northwell
Health, 2018 WL 1115345, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2018) (internal alterations and
quotations omitted); see also Lewis v. Adirondack Med. Ctr., 2024 WL 4448870, at *3
(N.D.N.Y. Oct. 9, 2024).
This was one of the grounds on which dismissal of the Complaint was originally
ordered. 	Dkt. No. 9 at p. 7. 	Plaintiff was given leave to amend but did not cure this
deficiency. Under the circumstances, the Court recommends that further leave to amend
not be granted. Weinreb v. Xerox Bus. Servs., LLC Health & Welfare Plan, 323 F. Supp.
3d 501, 522 (S.D.N.Y. 2018).
C. Plaintiff’s Address
The Court notes that mail sent to the address on file for Plaintiff was recently
returned as undeliverable. 	Dkt. No. 19. 	The Amended Complaint bears an address
different than the one Plaintiff has previously provided to the Court. See Dkt. No. 17 at
Case 8:24-cv-00121-MAD-DJS Document 20 Filed 03/30/26 Page 4 of 6

5
p. 14. All parties have an obligation to provide the Court with a current address. L.R.
10.1(c)(2). Plaintiff therefore is directed to advise the Court of his current address within
20 days of the date of this Report-Recommendation.
II. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, it is hereby
RECOMMENDED, that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint be DISMISSED; and
it is
ORDERED, 	that 	the 	Clerk 	of 	the 	Court 	serve 	a 	copy 	of 	this 	Report-
Recommendation and Order upon the parties to this action at his address of record and
the address provided in the Amended Complaint.
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
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 8:24-cv-00121-MAD-DJS Document 20 Filed 03/30/26 Page 5 of 6

6
& 6(a).
Date: 	March 30, 2026
Albany, New York
Case 8:24-cv-00121-MAD-DJS Document 20 Filed 03/30/26 Page 6 of 6