Marozzi v. Catlin et al

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
QUENTIN A. MAROZZI,
Plaintiff,
v.
BLAKE 	CATLIN, 	TRINITY 	FOOD,
INC.,1
Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
6:24-CV-06489 EAW
Pro se plaintiff Quentin Marozzi (“Plaintiff”) is confined at the Auburn Correctional
Facility. 	(Dkt. 11). 	He filed a complaint requesting relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
asserting that while confined at the Monroe County Jail, officials violated his rights to the
free exercise of religion and to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment. (Dkt. 1).
He also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. 2).
The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and screened his
complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A. 	(Dkt. 3) (the initial screening
order). That order dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against Monroe County Jail without leave
to amend; dismissed with leave to amend Plaintiff’s claims against Blake Catlin (“Catlin”)
and Trinity Food, Inc. (“Trinity”) in their official capacities; and permitted Plaintiff’s
1 	The Clerk of Court is requested to edit the docket sheet to reflect that Docket 7 is a
“Second Amended Complaint.” As discussed below, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s second
amended complaint and, therefore, the Clerk of Court need not add the defendants named
in that document.
Case 6:24-cv-06489-EAW-CDH Document 12 Filed 04/09/25 Page 1 of 8

- 2 -
Religious 	Land 	Use 	and 	Institutionalized 	Persons 	Act 	(“RLUIPA”) 	claim, 	First
Amendment free exercise of religion claim, and Fourteenth Amendment conditions of
confinement claim against Catlin and Trinity in their individual capacities to proceed to
service. (Id. at 11-12).
Plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint (Dkt. 4), which the Court screened
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A. 	However, in screening the amended
complaint the Court observed that Plaintiff had failed to redact information that the Court’s
initial screening order directed him to redact. 	(See Dkt. 3 at 11). 	The Court struck the
amended complaint and directed Plaintiff to re-file in accordance with the Court’s previous
order. 	(Dkt. 5). 	On November 19, 2024, Plaintiff timely re-filed his now-redacted
amended complaint. (Dkt. 6). But before the Court entered its order screening the amended
complaint, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. (Dkt. 7).
For the reasons that follow, the Court rejects the second amended complaint as
exceeding the parameters of the leave that was given to file an amended complaint and
deems Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Dkt. 6) the operative pleading. 	Plaintiff’s official
capacity claims are dismissed as abandoned and his RLUIPA claim is dismissed as moot.
Plaintiff’s free exercise and conditions of confinement claims against Catlin and Trinity in
their individual capacities will proceed to service.
DISCUSSION
Section 1915 “provide[s] an efficient means by which a court can screen for and
dismiss legally insufficient claims.” 	Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007)
(citing Shakur v. Selsky, 391 F.3d 106, 112 (2d Cir. 2004)). 	The Court shall dismiss a
Case 6:24-cv-06489-EAW-CDH Document 12 Filed 04/09/25 Page 2 of 8

- 3 -
complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity,
or an officer or employee of a governmental entity, if the court determines that the action
(1) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or (2) seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2).
I. 	THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
The Court rejects Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (Dkt. 7) because it asserts
new claims against new defendants. 	In its original screening order, the Court liberally
construed Plaintiff’s allegations to assert claims against Catlin and Trinity under RLUIPA,
the First Amendment’s free exercise clause, the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process
clause, and as requesting relief pursuant to Monell v. Department of Social Services of City
of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). (Dkt. 3 at 6-10). The Court permitted Plaintiff’s free
exercise, RLUIPA, and conditions of confinement claims to proceed to service upon Catlin
and Trinity and granted permission to amend to attempt to state a plausible official capacity
claim. (Id. at 11-13). The Court did not grant leave to amend to supplement the complaint
with new claims and new defendants.
Because the addition of new claims against new defendants falls outside the scope
of the amendment permitted in the Court’s previous Order, rejection of the second amended
complaint is warranted. See Palm Beach Strategic Income, LP v. Salzman, 457 F. App’x
40, 43 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary order) (noting that courts in this Circuit “routinely
dismiss[] claims in amended complaints where the court granted leave to amend for a
limited purpose and the plaintiff filed an amended complaint exceeding the scope of the
permission granted”) (collecting cases); Bravo v. Established Burger One, LLC, No. 12
Case 6:24-cv-06489-EAW-CDH Document 12 Filed 04/09/25 Page 3 of 8

- 4 -
Civ. 9044 (CM), 2013 WL 5549495, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 8, 2013) (dismissing claims in
the plaintiff’s second amended complaint because “the newly asserted claims are different
claims, on behalf of a different class, and because [they] exceed[] the scope of the Court’s
orders”).
A party may amend a pleading once “as a matter of course” no later than 21 days
after service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). “In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading
only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” 	Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(2). At this stage, because Plaintiff has already amended his pleading, but service is
not complete, additional claims and defendants can only be added “with . . . the court’s
leave.” 	Id. 	If Plaintiff wishes to add additional claims or defendants, he must seek
permission to do so by filing a properly supported motion for leave to amend. See Loc. R.
Civ. P. 15; Fed. R. Civ. P. 15; Cato v. Zweller, No. 6:21-CV-6207 EAW, 2023 WL
8653857, at *7 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2023) (where new claims against a new defendant fell
outside the scope of the amendment permitted in the Court’s previous orders, the Court
informed the plaintiff that the path to adding his new claims was “to attempt to pursue a
motion to amend, if appropriate, through formal motion practice”).2
2 	Even if the Court accepted Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, it does not comply
with the minimal pleading requirements set forth in Rule 8 and Rule 10 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. 	While pro se litigants are entitled to have their complaints
construed “liberally,” McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197, 200 (2d Cir. 2004), they are
“not exempt[ed] . . . from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive
law.’” 	Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 477 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting
Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983)). A pro se litigant’s “technical pleading
irregularities” need not be excused if they “undermine the purpose of notice pleading” or
“prejudice the adverse party.” 	Phillips v. Girdich, 408 F.3d 124, 128 (2d Cir. 2005).
Case 6:24-cv-06489-EAW-CDH Document 12 Filed 04/09/25 Page 4 of 8

- 5 -
II. 	THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
In evaluating a complaint or an amended complaint, the Court must accept all
factual allegations as true and must draw all inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. See Larkin
v. Savage, 318 F.3d 138, 139 (2d Cir. 2003) (per curiam); King v. Simpson, 189 F.3d 284,
287 (2d Cir. 1999). “Specific facts are not necessary,” and the plaintiff “need only ‘give
the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’”
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007)).
The initial screening order apprised Plaintiff of the elements required to plausibly
allege claims against Catlin and Trinity in their official capacities. 	(Dkt. 3 at 9-10).
Plaintiff’s amended complaint names Catlin and Trinity in their individual capacities only.
(Dkt. 6 at 2). Additionally, the facts alleged do not suggest any of the elements required
to plausibly allege official capacity claims against these defendants. 	(Id. at 10-12).
Accordingly, the claims against Catlin and Trinity in their official capacities are dismissed
as abandoned. 	See Austin v. Ford Models, Inc., 149 F.3d 148, 155 (2d Cir. 1998) (“the
question of abandonment is one of intent”), abrogated on other grounds by Swierkiewicz
v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002).
The Court’s screening order apprised Plaintiff that RLUIPA claims are limited to
injunctive relief. (See Dkt. 3 at 7 citing Washington v. Gonyea, 731 F.3d 143, 145 (2d Cir.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Rule 8 and Rule 10 serves as an alternative
basis for rejection or dismissal of the second amended complaint.
Case 6:24-cv-06489-EAW-CDH Document 12 Filed 04/09/25 Page 5 of 8

- 6 -
2013); Holland v. Goord, 758 F.3d 215, 224 (2d Cir. 2014)). After the Court entered its
screening order, Plaintiff was transferred from the Monroe County Jail to the New York
State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. “It is settled in this Circuit
that a transfer from a prison facility moots an action for injunctive relief against the
transferring facility.” Prins v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 504, 506 (2d Cir. 1996). Consequently,
Plaintiff’s RLUIPA claim requesting injunctive relief is now moot. 	Because attempt to
amend would be futile, leave to amend the RLUIPA claim is denied. 	See Booker v.
Graham, 974 F.3d 101, 107 (2d Cir. 2020) (affirming dismissal of RLUIPA claim as moot
because the plaintiff had been transferred).
Plaintiff’s free exercise and conditions of confinement claims against Catlin and
Trinity in their individual capacities remain sufficiently pled to proceed to service.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Catlin and Trinity in their
official capacities are dismissed as abandoned; Plaintiff’s RLUIPA claims are dismissed
as moot; and it is further
ORDERED that pursuant to Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1997), the
Court requests that the Monroe County Attorney’s Office ascertain the full names, with
correct spelling, and last known service addresses of Catlin and Trinity. 	The County
Attorney’s Office need not undertake to defend or indemnify these defendants at this time.
Rather, this Order merely provides a means by which Plaintiff may name and properly
serve these defendants. 	The County Attorney’s Office shall produce the information or
provide a written statement of reasons why such identification is improper or impossible,
Case 6:24-cv-06489-EAW-CDH Document 12 Filed 04/09/25 Page 6 of 8

- 7 -
by May 9, 2025, by forwarding it to the Court’s Pro Se Unit, United States District Court,
100 State Street, Rochester, New York 14614.3 Once the Court receives this information,
the Clerk of Court shall update the docket sheet as appropriate, the amended complaint
shall be deemed amended to reflect any corrections to the names of the defendants,
summonses shall issue, and the Court directs service on the defendants. 	Should the
Valentin response return personally identifiable information such as a home address, the
contact information shall be given to the Marshals Service solely for the purpose of serving
the summons and complaint; this information will otherwise remain confidential; and it is
further
ORDERED that upon receipt of the Valentin response, the Clerk of Court shall
cause the United States Marshals Service to serve copies of the summons, the amended
complaint (Dkt. 6), the initial screening order (Dkt. 3), and this Decision and Order upon
Catlin and Trinity without Plaintiff’s payment therefor, unpaid fees to be recoverable if
this action terminates by monetary award in Plaintiff’s favor; and it is further
ORDERED that upon service, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g), Catlin and Trinity
shall answer or respond to the First Amendment free exercise claim and the Fourteenth
Amendment conditions of confinement claim in the amended complaint (Dkt. 6); and it is
further
3 	If the response is instead filed on CM/ECF, it must be submitted by selecting
“Valentin Response” under “Discovery Documents.” 	Responses filed using this method
are reviewed by Court personnel before being made public.
Case 6:24-cv-06489-EAW-CDH Document 12 Filed 04/09/25 Page 7 of 8

- 8 -
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to forward a copy of this Decision
and Order by mail to the Monroe County Attorney, 307 County Office Building, 39 W.
Main St., Rochester, New York 14614; and it is further
ORDERED that pursuant to Western District of New York Local Rule of Civil
Procedure 5.2(d), Plaintiff must notify the Court in writing if his address changes. Failure
to do so may result in dismissal of the action with prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: 	April 9, 2025
Rochester, New York
ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD
Chief Judge
United States District Court
ELIZAB	BE	ETH A	A	A	A. WO	O	OL	L	L	LF	F	F	FO	O	OR	R	R	RD	D	D	D
Chief JJJudge
Case 6:24-cv-06489-EAW-CDH Document 12 Filed 04/09/25 Page 8 of 8