Bennett v. Acting N.Y.S. Division of Parole et al

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ANTONIO BENNETT,
Plaintiff,
1:26-CV-631
v. 	(BKS/DJS)
ACTING N.Y.S. DIVISION OF PAROLE, et al.,
Defendants.
APPEARANCES:
ANTONIO BENNETT
Plaintiff, Pro Se
Astoria, New York 11106
DANIEL J. STEWART
United States Magistrate Judge
REPORT-RECOMMENDATION and ORDER
Plaintiff pro se filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. No. 1, Compl.
He has also filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. No. 2, which
this Court has granted by separate order. 	Plaintiff’s Complaint is before the Court for
initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and for the reasons set forth below, the Court
recommends that the Complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. 	Plaintiff also seeks
appointment of counsel, Dkt. No. 3, which is denied at this time.
Case 1:26-cv-00631-BKS-DJS Document 12 Filed 05/05/26 Page 1 of 8

- 2 -
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
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).
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 1:26-cv-00631-BKS-DJS Document 12 Filed 05/05/26 Page 2 of 8

- 3 -
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
Plaintiff commenced this action using a form complaint for actions pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. See Compl. The Complaint also contains numerous exhibits, totaling 475
pages. Dkt. Nos. 1-1-1-6. Plaintiff subsequently filed multiple letters through which he
seeks to attach additional documents to his Complaint. 	Dkt. Nos. 7-9. 	Despite the
voluminous nature of Plaintiff’s submissions, the precise nature of his factual and legal
claims is unclear.
Case 1:26-cv-00631-BKS-DJS Document 12 Filed 05/05/26 Page 3 of 8

- 4 -
This 	failure 	to 	provide 	proper 	notice 	renders 	dismissal 	of 	the 	Complaint
appropriate. 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 . . . ;
(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 rule serves to make certain that the party named as a defendant
is on notice of the claims being asserted against it. Powell v. Marine Midland Bank, 162
F.R.D. 15, 16 (N.D.N.Y. 1995). 	A complaint that fails to comply with these Rules
“presents far too heavy a burden in terms of [defendant’s] duty to shape a comprehensive
defense and provides no meaningful basis for the Court to assess the sufficiency of [the
plaintiff’s] claims,” and may properly be dismissed by the court. Gonzales v. Wing, 167
F.R.D. 352, 355 (N.D.N.Y. 1996). 	The factual allegations here are exceptionally brief
and somewhat unclear. And the Complaint does not identify any specific legal claim of
wrongdoing from which a responding party could ascertain the specific causes of action
Plaintiff attempts to assert. 	Moreover, Plaintiff’s reliance on multiple additional
submissions to supplement the Complaint is inconsistent with the rule against permitting
piecemeal pleadings. 	Hanyon v. The State of New York, 2026 WL 980800, at *4
(N.D.N.Y. Apr. 13, 2026).
Case 1:26-cv-00631-BKS-DJS Document 12 Filed 05/05/26 Page 4 of 8

- 5 -
In addition, the Complaint fails to comply with Rule 10. Rule 10(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure states:
A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each
limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances. A later pleading
may refer by number to a paragraph in an earlier pleading. If doing so would
promote 	clarity, 	each 	claim 	founded 	on 	a 	separate 	transaction 	or
occurrence--and each defense other than a denial--must be stated in a
separate count or defense.
FED . R. CIV . P. 10(b). 	“The purpose of Rule 10 is to ‘provide an easy mode of
identification for referring to a particular paragraph in a prior pleading.’” 	Hudson v.
Artuz, 1998 WL 832708, at *2 (quoting Sandler v. Capanna, 1992 WL 392597, at *3
(E.D. Pa. Dec. 17, 1992)). 	Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to satisfy Rule 10 because
he did not state his claims in “numbered paragraphs” with “each claim founded on a
separate transaction or occurrence” such that the Court can discern the factual and legal
basis of the allegation. FED . R. CIV . P. 10(b).
In cases in which the court dismisses a pro se complaint for failure to comply with
applicable pleadings rules, it should allow the plaintiff leave to amend the complaint to
state a claim that is on its face nonfrivolous. See Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86-87
(2d Cir. 1995). 	That is clearly the appropriate resolution here and so the Court
recommends that the Complaint be dismissed but that Plaintiff be granted leave to file an
amended complaint.
Case 1:26-cv-00631-BKS-DJS Document 12 Filed 05/05/26 Page 5 of 8

- 6 -
Should Plaintiff be directed by the District Judge to file an amended complaint, I
offer the following guidance. Any such amended complaint, which shall supersede and
replace in its entirety the previous Complaint filed by Plaintiff, must contain a caption
that clearly identifies, by name, each individual/entity that Plaintiff is suing and must bear
the case number assigned to this action. It must be a single document. Plaintiff must also
clearly state the nature of the suit and the basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. The body of
the amended complaint must contain sequentially numbered paragraphs containing only
one act of misconduct per paragraph. Thus, if Plaintiff claims that his rights were violated
on more than one occasion, he should include a corresponding number of paragraphs in
the amended complaint for each such allegation, with each paragraph specifying: (i) the
alleged act of misconduct; (ii) the date on which such misconduct occurred; (iii) the
names of each and every individual who participated in such misconduct; (iv) where
appropriate, the location where the alleged misconduct occurred; and (v) the nexus
between such misconduct and Plaintiff’s civil and/or constitutional rights. The amended
complaint also must clearly state Plaintiff’s legal causes of action.
Plaintiff also seeks the appointment of counsel. 	Dkt. No. 3. 	“A party has no
constitutionally guaranteed right to the assistance of counsel in a civil case.” 	Leftridge v.
Connecticut State Trooper Officer No. 1283, 640 F.3d 62, 68 (2d Cir. 2011) (citations
omitted). 	A variety of factors must be considered when appointment of counsel is sought,
including whether the underlying claims are likely to succeed. Id. at 69; Terminate Control
Case 1:26-cv-00631-BKS-DJS Document 12 Filed 05/05/26 Page 6 of 8

- 7 -
Corp. v. Horowitz, 28 F.3d 1335, 1341 (2d Cir. 1994). In the present matter, the case is at a
very early stage. Indeed, only allegations have been made at this point; no evidence has yet
been submitted relating to Plaintiff’s claims. At this time, Plaintiff has not met the threshold
requirement of demonstrating that his claims seem likely to be of substance. See Brown v.
Utica Police Dep’t, 2017 WL 5514518, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2017) (“Where there are
merely unsupported allegations, the moving party does not meet the first requirement
imposed by the Second Circuit for appointment of pro bono counsel.”) (citation omitted).
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, it is hereby
RECOMMENDED, that Plaintiff’s Complaint be DISMISSED with leave to
amend; and it is
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED; and
it is further
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
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 1:26-cv-00631-BKS-DJS Document 12 Filed 05/05/26 Page 7 of 8

- 8 -
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: May 5, 2026
Albany, New York
Case 1:26-cv-00631-BKS-DJS Document 12 Filed 05/05/26 Page 8 of 8