Oksen v. Fort Drum Mountain Community Homes, LLC et al

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________
NATALIE J. OKSEN,
Plaintiff,
-v- 	5:25-CV-822 (AJB/MJK)
FORT DRUM MOUNTAIN
COMMUNITY HOMES, LLC et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
NATALIE J. OKSEN
Plaintiff, Pro Se
6557A Pinehurst Drive
Fort Drum, NY 13603
Hon. Anthony Brindisi, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
On June 25, 2025, pro se plaintiff Natalie J. Oksen (“plaintiff”), the spouse of a military
servicemember, filed this civil action alleging that defendants violated her rights under the Fair
Housing Act (“FHA”), the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Servicemembers Civil
Relief Act (“SCRA”), and related state law. Dkt. No. 1. Along with her complaint, plaintiff also
moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”). Dkt. No. 2.
On July 25, 2025, U.S. Magistrate Judge Mitchell J. Katz granted plaintiff’s IFP Applica-
tion and, after an initial review of her pleading, advised by Report & Recommendation (“R&R”)
that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed in its entirety. Dkt. No. 6. In Judge Katz’s view, plaintiff’s
initial complaint failed to state any claims for relief under the relatively “forgiving” standard that
applies on initial review. See id.
Case 5:25-cv-00822-AJB-MJK Document 24 Filed 03/13/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
On August 27, 2025, this Court adopted Judge Katz’s R&R over plaintiff’s objections.
Dkt. No. 8. In so doing, the Court reasoned that plaintiff was (and is) pro se and that this was only
her first attempt at pleading claims based on the fact pattern she had outlined in her complaint. Id.
The Court gave plaintiff a thirty-day period in which to submit an amended complaint that “cure[d]
the deficiencies identified in Judge Katz’s R&R.” Id. Thereafter, plaintiff received several exten-
sions of time, Dkt. Nos. 11, 13, 16, and eventually filed an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 17.
On January 21, 2026, Judge Katz advised in a second R&R that plaintiff’s amended com-
plaint be dismissed with partial leave to amend. Dkt. No. 18. There, Judge Katz explained that
plaintiff had—for a second time—failed to plausibly allege an FHA § 3604(f) discrimination claim
and therefore further leave to amend that claim would be unwarranted. Id. However, Judge Katz
opined that, with the benefit of further leave to amend, might be able to plausibly allege an FHA
§ 3617 retaliation claim based on defendants’ enforcement of the pet policy against her. See id.
Accordingly, Judge Katz recommended that plaintiff’s amended complaint be dismissed with par-
tial leave to amend so that she could attempt to replead her FHA § 3617 retaliation claim. Id.
Plaintiff has filed an “emergency” motion for a temporary restraining order and a prelimi-
nary injunction. Dkt. No. 19. She also filed a notice of supplemental facts, Dkt. No. 20, and, after
receiving an extension of time in which to do so, Dkt. No. 22, lodged objections to Judge Katz’s
second R&R. Dkt. No. 23.
Upon de novo review, Judge Katz’s R&R is accepted and will be adopted. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C). Broadly speaking, plaintiff claims in her objections that this Court should reject
the R&R because she is entitled to the benefit of several plaintiff-friendly background principles:
the general measure of solicitude owed to pro se litigants, the generous construction given to FHA
claims in light of the statute’s broad remedial purpose, and the fact that, at the pleadings stage, a
Case 5:25-cv-00822-AJB-MJK Document 24 Filed 03/13/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
complaint need only contain sufficient factual matter to state a “plausible” claim. See Dkt. No.
23. Plaintiff is more or less correct about all three of those background principles. But there is no
indication that Judge Katz misapplied any of them in his R&R. Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint
will be dismissed with partial leave to amend. 	Plaintiff is cautioned that any second amended
complaint will completely replace and supersede her prior pleadings.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. The Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 18) is ACCEPTED;
2. Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Dkt. No. 17) is DISMISSED with partial leave to amend;
3. Plaintiff’s emergency motion (Dkt. No. 19) is DENIED without prejudice;
4. Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days in which to file a second amended complaint;
5. If plaintiff timely files a second amended complaint, the Clerk is directed to REFER the
file to Judge Katz for further action as appropriate; and
6. 	If plaintiff does not timely file a second amended complaint, the Clerk is directed to
enter a judgment dismissing this action and close the file 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: March 13, 2026
Utica, New York.
Case 5:25-cv-00822-AJB-MJK Document 24 Filed 03/13/26 Page 3 of 3