Spigner v. Correction Officer Ms. C (Jane Doe) et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
GEORGE SPIGNER,
Plaintiff,
V.
CORRECTION OFFICER MS. C. (JANE DOE) et al.,
Defendants.
APPEARANCES:
GEORGE SPIGNER
Plaintiff, pro se
15-A-2286
Auburn Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 618
Auburn, NY 13021
ANNE M. NARDACCI
United States District Judge
I. 	INTRODUCTION
DECISION AND ORDER
9:25-CV-1324
(AMN/PJE)
OF COUNSEL:
Plaintiff George Spigner ("plaintiff") commenced this action by filing a pro se civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983"), together with an application to
proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). 	Dkt. No. 1 ("Compl."), Dkt. No. 6 ("IFP Application"). 	In
the complaint, plaintiff asserted claims arising out of his confinement in the custody of the
New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS") at Mid-
State Correctional Facility ("Mid-State C.F."). 	See generally Compl. 	In a Decision and Order
filed on December 15, 2025 (the "December 2025 Order"), the Court reviewed the sufficiency
Case 9:25-cv-01324-AMN-PJE Document 25 Filed 04/03/26 Page 1 of 8

of plaintiffs complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 191 S(e) and 28 U.S.C. § 191 SA. 	See
Dkt. No. 10. Based upon that review, the Court directed a response to the Eighth
Amendment failure-to-protect/failure-to-intervene claims against CO Doe C, CO Doe P, and
Feraige/Ferage. 1 See id. 	The Court dismissed the Eighth Amendment excessive force
claims and Eighth Amendment claims related to threats and harassment against defendants
Correction Officer Mendoza ("Mendoza") and Sergeant Doe ("Sgt. Doe"), without prejudice.
Id. 	The Clerk of the Court was directed to issue a summons for service upon Feraige. 	Id.
Plaintiff was directed to take reasonable steps through discovery to ascertain the identity of
the Doe defendants. 	Id. at 16. 	Plaintiff was advised that his failure to timely serve those
defendants would result in dismissal of the claims asserted against them and termination of
those defendants from the action. 	See generally Dkt. No. 10.
On December 16, 2025, a summons was issued to Feraige. 	Dkt. No. 12.
On January 16, 2026, the Court received a letter indicating that "Mr. Feraige" was not
employed at Mid-State C.F. 	Dkt. No. 16. On January 19, 2026, the summons for Feraige
was returned unexecuted. 	Dkt. No. 18.
In a Decision and Order filed on January 27, 2026 (the "January 2026 Order"),
pursuant to Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72 (2d. Cir. 1997) (per curiam), the Court directed
the Office of the Attorney General to attempt to ascertain the full name of the defendants,
including Feraige/Ferage. 	Dkt. No. 27. The Attorney General's Office was directed, to the
extent that it was able to identify the defendants, to provide the addresses where the
defendants may be served. 	Id.
1 In the caption of the complaint, plaintiff referred to defendant as "Feraige." Campi. at 1. In the list of parties,
plaintiff referred to defendant as "Ferage." Id. at 2. Throughout the complaint and exhibits, plaintiff referred to
defendant as Feraige and Ferage, interchangeably. Id. at 6, 25.
2
Case 9:25-cv-01324-AMN-PJE Document 25 Filed 04/03/26 Page 2 of 8

On February 26, 2026, the Attorney General's Office submitted a response to the
January 2026 Order. 	Dkt. No. 22. 	In an Order filed March 5, 2026 (the "March 2026 Order"),
the Court directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint that correctly identified the
defendants in the complaint. 	Dkt. No. 23. To assist plaintiff in drafting the proposed
amended complaint, the Clerk was directed to forward to plaintiff a copy of the complaint. 	Id.
Plaintiff was advised that he may identify the defendants by handwriting the names in the
appropriate locations on the copy of the amended complaint and indicate in the caption of the
document that it is the amended complaint. 	Id. 	Plaintiff was further advised to caption the
document as his amended complaint and submit it to the Court for review. 	Id.
On March 30, 2026, plaintiff submitted an amended complaint. 	Dkt. No. 24.
II. 	REVIEW OF AMENDED COMPLAINT
A. 	Legal Standard
The legal standard governing the dismissal of a pleading for failure to state a claim
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(8) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A was discussed at length in the
December 2025 Order and it will not be restated in this Decision and Order. 	See Dkt. No. 10
at 2-4.
B. Summary of Factual Allegations
With the amended complaint, plaintiff substitutes defendant Correction Officer Jessica
L. Carlstedt ("Carlstedt") for C.O. Doe C, Correction Officer Raymond A Folaji ("Folaji") for
C.O. Feraige/Ferage, and Sergeant N. Slate ("Slate") for Sgt. Doe. 	See Am. Campi. at 1. 2
The facts asserted in the amended complaint are identical to those pied in the original
2 The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the Docket Report accordingly.
3
Case 9:25-cv-01324-AMN-PJE Document 25 Filed 04/03/26 Page 3 of 8

complaint. 	Compare Campi. with Am. Campi. 	Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief
and monetary damages. 	See Campi. at 8-9.
C. Analysis
1. Eleventh Amendment
The Eleventh Amendment has long been construed as barring a citizen from bringing
a suit against his or her own state in federal court, under the fundamental principle of
"sovereign immunity." U.S. Const. amend. XI ("The Judicial power of the United States shall
not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against
one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any
Foreign State."); Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 10-21 (1890); Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe
of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 267 (1997); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S.
89, 100 (1984). 	Eleventh Amendment immunity is lost only if Congress unequivocally
abrogates states' immunity or a state expressly consents to suit. 	Gol/omp v. Spitzer, 568
F.3d 355, 365-66 (2d Cir. 2009).
It is well-settled that Congress did not abrogate states' immunity through 42 U.S.C. §
1983, see Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 343-45 (1979), and that New York State has not
waived its immunity from suit on the claims asserted in plaintitrs complaint. 	See generally
Trotman v. Palisades Interstate Park Comm'n, 557 F.2d 35, 38-40 (2d Cir. 1977); Dawkins v.
State of New York, No. 93-CV-1298 (RSP/GJD), 1996 WL 156764 at *2 (N.D.N.Y. 1996).
Accordingly, plaintitrs Section 1983 claims for monetary damages against defendants
in their official capacity are dismissed without prejudice and without leave to renew pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(8) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) as barred by the Eleventh
Amendment, and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 	See Kentucky
4
Case 9:25-cv-01324-AMN-PJE Document 25 Filed 04/03/26 Page 4 of 8

v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169 (1985) (a claim for damages against state officials in their
official capacity is considered to be a claim against the State and is therefore barred by the
Eleventh Amendment); Ying Jing Gan v. City of New York, 996 F.2d 522, 529 (2d Cir. 1993)
("To the extent that a state official is sued for damages in his official capacity, such a suit is
deemed to be a suit against the state, and the official is entitled to invoke the Eleventh
Amendment immunity belonging to the state."); Severino v. Negron, 996 F.2d 1439, 1441 (2d
Cir. 1993) ("[l]t is clear that the Eleventh Amendment does not permit suit [under Section
1983] for money damages against state officials in their official capacities.").
2. 	Eighth Amendment Failure-to-Protect/Failure-to-Intervene Claims
As a result of the review of the original complaint, the Court held that plaintiff's Eighth
Amendment failure-to-protect/failure-to-intervene claims against C.O. Doe C, C.O. Doe P,
and Feraige required a response. 	With the amended complaint, plaintiff repeats those claims
against Carlstedt, C.O. Doe P, and Folaji. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the
December 2025 Order, the Eighth Amendment claims against Carlstedt, C.O. Doe P, and
Folaji survive review and require a response. 	In so ruling, the Court expresses no opinion as
to whether these claims can withstand a properly filed motion to dismiss or for summary
judgment. 3
3. Claims against Mendoza and Slate
3 Plaintiff cannot effect service of process on any corrections officer whose name is not known to plaintiff unless
and until the individual has been identified by name. If plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims against C.O. Doe P,
he must take reasonable steps to ascertain through discovery the identity of that individual. Upon learning the
identity of an unnamed defendant, plaintiff must amend the operative complaint to properly name the individual
as a party. If plaintiff fails to ascertain the identity of C.O. Doe P as to permit timely service of process, all
claims against that individual will be dismissed.
5
Case 9:25-cv-01324-AMN-PJE Document 25 Filed 04/03/26 Page 5 of 8

In the December 2025 Order, the Court dismissed plaintiff's claims related to threats
and verbal harassment because plaintiff did not allege that he suffered any injury as a result
of the alleged harassment. 	Dkt. No. 1O at 12.
With the amended complaint, plaintiff repeats and realleges these claims against
Mendoza and Slate. 	For the reasons set forth in the December 2025 Order, these claims are
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(8) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failure to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Ill. 	CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, it is hereby
ORDERED that the amended complaint (Dkt. No. 24) is accepted for filing and is
deemed the operative pleading; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall revise the Docket Report in the following
manner: (1) add Carlstedt, Folaji, and Slate as defendants in this action; and (2) terminate
C.O. Doe C, Feraige, and Sgt. Doe as defendants; and it is further
ORDERED that the following claims are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(8) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted: (1) § 1983 claims for monetary damages against defendants in their official capacity;
and (2) claims against Mendoza and Slate; and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against Carlstedt, C.O. Doe P,
and Folaji survive review and require a response; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue summonses and forward them, along with copies
of the amended complaint, to the United States Marshal for service upon the defendants. The
Clerk shall forward a copy of the summonses and amended complaint to the Attorney
6
Case 9:25-cv-01324-AMN-PJE Document 25 Filed 04/03/26 Page 6 of 8

General's Office, together with a copy of this Decision and Order via electronic mail only; and
it is further
ORDERED that a response to the amended complaint be filed by the defendants or
their counsel, as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and it is further
ORDERED that all pleadings, motions, and other documents relating to this action
must bear the case number assigned to this action and be filed with the Clerk of the United
States District Court, Northern District of New York, 7th Floor, Federal Building, 100 S.
Clinton St., Syracuse, New York 13261-7367. Any paper sent by a party to the Court or the
Clerk must be accompanied by a certificate showing that a true and correct copy of same
was served on all opposing parties or their counsel. Any document received by the Clerk or
the Court which does not include a proper certificate of service will be stricken from the
docket. 	Plaintiff must comply with any requests by the Clerk's Office for any documents that
are necessary to maintain this action. All parties must comply with Local Rule 7 .1 of the
Northern District of New York in filing motions. 	Plaintiff is also required to promptly notify
the Clerk's Office and all parties or their counsel, in writing, of any change in his
address; his failure to do so will result in the dismissal of his action; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall terminate Slate as a defendant; and it is
further
ORDERED that plaintiff shall take reasonable steps through discovery to ascertain the
identity of defendant C.O. Doe P. 	Plaintiff's failure to timely serve the defendant will result
in dismissal of the claims asserted against the defendant and termination of the defendant
from the action; and it is further
7
Case 9:25-cv-01324-AMN-PJE Document 25 Filed 04/03/26 Page 7 of 8

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Decision and Order on
plaintiff in accordance with the Local Rules of Practice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 3, 2026
Albany, NY
~kVJ~Jlt<h~Anne M. Nardacci
U.S. District Judge
8
Case 9:25-cv-01324-AMN-PJE Document 25 Filed 04/03/26 Page 8 of 8