DiSanto v. Ulster County Family Court

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________
PATRICK DISANTO,
Plaintiff,
-v- 	1:25-CV-1329 (AJB/MJK)
ULSTER COUNTY FAMILY COURT,
Defendant.
_____________________________________
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
PATRICK DISANTO
Plaintiff, Pro Se
16008 West 84th Terrace
Lenexa, KS 66219
Hon. Anthony Brindisi, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
On September 19, 2025, pro se plaintiff Patrick DiSanto (“plaintiff”) submitted a filing
entitled “memorandum of law & request for evidentiary hearing,” which the Clerk of the Court
docketed as a complaint. Dkt. No. 1. Along with that filing, plaintiff moved for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”). Dkt. No 2. Thereafter, plaintiff submitted another filing
entitled “memorandum of law & request for evidentiary hearing,” which the Clerk has docketed
as an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 4. Plaintiff has also filed a “motion to seal case,” Dkt. No.
5, a “distinction notice,” Dkt. No. 6, a “motion for protective order,” Dkt. No. 8, a “notice of
constitutional challenge,” Dkt. No. 9, a “petition to perpetuate testimony to Rule 27(a)” Dkt. No.
10, a “motion to vacate judgment for Fraud on the Court,” Dkt. No. 11, and a “motion to seal
respondent list,” Dkt. No. 12.
Case 1:25-cv-01329-AJB-MJK Document 15 Filed 12/09/25 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
On November 5, 2025, U.S. Magistrate Judge Mitchell J. Katz granted plaintiff’s IFP
Application and, after an initial review of the pleadings and other filings, advised by Report &
Recommendation (“R&R”) that plaintiff’s amended complaint be dismissed with partial leave to
amend. Dkt. No. 13. As relevant here, Judge Katz advised that plaintiff be given a chance to
amend most of his claims, but recommended that several of them be dismissed without leave to
amend: (1) claims for negligence/medical malpractice arising out of plaintiff’s “hypoglycemic
event”; (2) claims for false arrest and/or excessive force; and (3) claims against Judge Cahill and
Judge Lalor. Id. at 21.1 As Judge Katz explained, those three claims were either time-barred or
precluded by immunity principles. Id. Aside from those claims Judge Katz recommended that
plaintiff be given leave to amend. Id. Notably, however, Judge Katz cautioned plaintiff that a
second amended complaint must conform with certain requirements, including those imposed by
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 21–22.
Plaintiff has lodged objections. Dkt. No. 14. There, plaintiff contends that the R&R fails
to accurately state the procedural history or apply the appropriate governing law. See id. In this
filing, plaintiff also “provides formal notice of [his] disability status” and requests several ADA
accommodations in connection with the Court’s treatment of this lawsuit. Id.
Upon de novo review, the R&R is accepted and will be adopted in all respects. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Although plaintiff is entitled to special solicitude in light of his pro se
status, and while the Court will certainly stay mindful of plaintiff’s impairments, federal courts
have repeatedly rejected the notion that a litigant’s impairment, or combination or impairments,
excuses compliance with ordinary procedural rules or creates any specific substantive rights in
1 Pagination corresponds with CM/ECF headers.
Case 1:25-cv-01329-AJB-MJK Document 15 Filed 12/09/25 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
connection with federal-court litigation. See, e.g., McDowell v. McDonough, 2024 WL 4751692,
at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 8, 2024) (collecting cases).
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. The Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 13) is ACCEPTED;
2. Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Dkt. No. 4) is DISMISSED with partial leave to
amend as set forth above and in the R&R;
3. Plaintiff’s miscellaneous motions (Dkt. Nos. 5, 8, 10, 11, 12) are DENIED without
prejudice;
4. Plaintiff shall have THIRTY DAYS in which to file a second amended complaint that
conforms with the instructions set forth in Judge Katz’s R&R and this Order;
5. If plaintiff timely files a second amended complaint, the Clerk is directed to refer this
matter to Judge Katz for further review and action as appropriate;
6. If plaintiff does not timely file a second amended complaint, the Clerk is directed to
enter a judgment dismissing this action without further Order of the Court.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motions and set a deadline
accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 9, 2025
Utica, New York.
Case 1:25-cv-01329-AJB-MJK Document 15 Filed 12/09/25 Page 3 of 3