Opinion

Arciola

Court: District Court, S.D. New York
Filed: Oct 8, 2025
Cited by: 0 cases
Authority: More cited than 37.6%

holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue

How later courts described this case

holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue
describing actions that are judicial in nature
“Class-of-one plaintiffs must show an extremely high degree of similarity between themselves and the persons to whom they compare themselves. Accordingly, to succeed on a class-of-one claim, a plaintiff must establish that (i
noting that writ of habeas corpus is sole remedy for prisoner seeking to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

MICHAEL ARCIOLA,

Plaintiff,

-against-

NEW YORK STATE D.O.C.C.S.; ZAIRA 25-CV-3986 (LLS)

SERRANO, BUREAU CHIEF; SUEANN

ORDER TO AMEND

LASHLEY, PAROLE OFFICER; LEAH

WHITE, CASE MANAGER; VIRGINIA

JAMES MORROW, ADMINISTRATIVE

LAW JUDGE,

Defendants.

LOUIS L. STANTON, United States District Judge:

When Plaintiff filed this complaint, he was detained in the Dutchess County Jail, but he is

now incarcerated in the Clinton Correctional Facility. He brings this action pro se, under 42

U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his constitutional rights. By order dated June

10, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is,

without prepayment of fees.1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to

file an amended complaint within 60 days of the date of this order.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that federal courts screen complaints brought

by prisoners who seek relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a

governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a prisoner’s civil rights

complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim

1 Prisoners are not exempt from paying the full filing fee even when they have been

granted permission to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); see Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007).

The Court must also dismiss a complaint if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to

construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret

them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470

F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted, emphasis in

original). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases, id. at 475 (citation omitted), has its limits –

to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief.

Rule 8 requires a complaint to include enough facts to state a claim for relief “that is

plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially

plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the Court to draw the inference that

the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In

reviewing the complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Id.

But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,”

which are essentially just legal conclusions. Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). After

separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court must determine

whether those facts make it plausible—not merely possible—that the pleader is entitled to relief.

Id. at 679.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are drawn from the complaint, which names the following

Defendants: (1) the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision

(“DOCCS”); (2) DOCCS Bureau Chief Zaira Serrano; (3) Parole Officer Sueann Lashley; Case

Manager Leah White; and Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Virginia James Morrow. Plaintiff

alleges that on October 2, 2024, he “began to see a pattern of sexism and racism” in connection

with his parole revocation proceedings. (ECF 1 at 6.) Plaintiff alleges that, during a hearing, ALJ

Morrow “was flirting with the prosecuting attorney David Graubard,” who responded to her by

winking, doing “obscene gestures” and acting “jokingly” and “inappropriate[ly].” (Id.) Plaintiff

alleges that Morrow cannot “be fair and impartial” if she “carr[ies] on unprofessionally with” the

prosecution. (Id. at 7.) According to Plaintiff, Parole Officer Lashley “blatantly lied” during the

hearing because “she hates white people” and wanted him to remain in custody. (Id.)

Plaintiff further alleges that DOCCS Bureau Chief Serrano either denied grievances he

filed or treated his grievances differently from those filed by other parolees, based on “sexism,

racism, hate, dereliction of duty, false imprisonment, based on lies, false statements, and deceit.”

(Id.) He claims that he is suffering from “debilitating medical issues” that were “caused by

[DOCCS] and [ALJ] Morrow,” and he seeks to be paroled to Samaritan Village, a drug treatment

program. (Id. at 25, 28, 39.) There are numerous attachments to the complaint, which include:

requests Plaintiff submitted under the New York State Freedom of Information Law to DOCCS

seeking documents related to his claims of disparate treatment; grievances that he filed to

DOCCS; and other correspondence. (Id. at 11-67.) In a letter, Plaintiff also states that he does not

have access to a good law library, and that the tablets do not always work. (ECF 9.)

DISCUSSION

A. Section 1983

Plaintiff filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his

constitutional rights. A plaintiff proceeding under Section 1983 must allege both that: (1) a right

secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the right was

violated by a person acting under the color of state law, or a “state actor.” West v. Atkins, 487

U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988).

The Court construes Plaintiff’s complaint as asserting that Defendants violated his right

to equal protection. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the

right to be free from “invidious discrimination in statutory classifications and other governmental

activity.” Bernheim v. Litt, 79 F.3d 318, 323 (2d Cir. 1996) (quoting Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S.

297, 322 (1980)). The Equal Protection Clause “is essentially a direction that all persons

similarly situated should be treated alike.” City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S.

432, 439 (1985); see also Harlen Assocs. v. Inc. Vill. of Mineola, 273 F.3d 494, 499 (2d Cir.

2001) (same). Therefore, “[t]o state a claim for an equal protection violation, [a plaintiff] must

allege that a government actor intentionally discriminated against him on the basis of race,

national origin or gender.” Hayden v. Cnty. of Nassau, 180 F.3d 42, 48 (2d Cir. 1999). A plaintiff

can plausibly allege intentional discrimination in three ways: (1) “a law or policy is

discriminatory on its face if it expressly classifies persons on the basis of race or gender”; (2) “a

law which is facially neutral violates equal protection if it is applied in a discriminatory fashion”;

or (3) “a facially neutral statute violates equal protection if it was motivated by discriminatory

animus and its application results in a discriminatory effect.” Id. (citations omitted).

Here, Plaintiff does not set forth facts in support of any of these three forms of

discrimination. There are no allegations in the complaint of any ‘similarly-situated’ individuals

who were treated differently from him. He simply concludes that Defendants discriminated

against him based on his race, but provides no facts in support of that assertion.

The Court also considers whether Plaintiff’s complaint could be construed as asserting a

“class of one” equal protection claim. “[A] ‘class of one’ equal protection claim requires that

(1) [the plaintiff] was treated differently from others similarly situated in all relevant respects,

(2) the defendant had no rational basis for the different treatment, and (3) the different treatment

resulted from a non-discretionary state action.” Barkai v. Nuendorf, No. 21-CV-4060 (KMK),

2023 WL 2691712, at *30 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2023) (citing Engquist v. Or. Dep’t of Agric., 553

U.S. 591, 604 (2008)); see also Ruston v. Town Bd. for Town of Skaneateles, 610 F.3d 55, 59-60

(2d Cir. 2010) (“Class-of-one plaintiffs must show an extremely high degree of similarity

between themselves and the persons to whom they compare themselves. Accordingly, to succeed

on a class-of-one claim, a plaintiff must establish that (i) no rational person could regard the

circumstances of the plaintiff to differ from those of a comparator to a degree that would justify

the differential treatment on the basis of a legitimate government policy; and (ii) the similarity in

circumstances and difference in treatment are sufficient to exclude the possibility that the

defendants acted on the basis of a mistake.” (quotation marks and citation omitted)).

To the extent that Plaintiff may be pleading a ‘class of one’ equal protection claim, the

complaint is similarly devoid of facts in support of such a claim. In light of Plaintiff’s pro se

status, the Court grants him leave to replead his equal protection claim in an amended complaint.

B. Claims against the named Defendants

Judicial immunity

Judges are absolutely immune from suit for damages for any actions taken within the

scope of their judicial responsibilities. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991). Generally, “acts

arising out of, or related to, individual cases before the judge are considered judicial in nature.”

Bliven v. Hunt, 579 F.3d 204, 210 (2d Cir. 2009). “Even allegations of bad faith or malice cannot

overcome judicial immunity.” Id. (citations omitted). This is because “[w]ithout insulation from

liability, judges would be subject to harassment and intimidation . . . .” Young v. Selsky, 41 F.3d

47, 51 (2d Cir. 1994). In addition, as amended in 1996, § 1983 provides that “in any action

brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity,

injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief

was unavailable.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Judicial immunity does not apply when the judge takes action “outside” her judicial

capacity, or when the judge takes action that, although judicial in nature, is taken “in absence of

jurisdiction.” Mireles, 502 U.S. at 9-10; see also Bliven, 579 F.3d at 209-10 (describing actions

that are judicial in nature). But “the scope of [a] judge’s jurisdiction must be construed broadly

where the issue is the immunity of the judge.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978).

Plaintiff’s claims against ALJ Morrow concern her conduct while presiding over his

parole violation hearing. Because ALJ Morrow undoubtedly had jurisdiction of that matter, and

because Plaintiff does not allege that a declaratory decree was violated or that declaratory relief

was unavailable to him, the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity therefore applies.

Eleventh Amendment immunity

“[A]s a general rule, state governments may not be sued in federal court unless they have

waived their Eleventh Amendment immunity, or unless Congress has abrogated the states’

Eleventh Amendment immunity[.]” Gollomp v. Spitzer, 568 F.3d 355, 366 (2d Cir. 2009). “The

immunity recognized by the Eleventh Amendment extends beyond the states themselves to state

agents and state instrumentalities that are, effectively, arms of a state.” Id. New York has not

waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court, and Congress did not abrogate

the states’ immunity in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Trotman v. Palisades Interstate Park

Comm’n, 557 F.2d 35, 40 (2d Cir. 1977). For these reasons, the court dismisses Plaintiff’s

Section 1983 claims against DOCCS and agents Lashley and Serrano in their official capacity

under the Eleventh Amendment.2

Parole officer immunity

Plaintiff’s complaint can also be construed as asserting claims against Parole Officer

Lashley in her personal capacity. State officials, such as parole officers, have absolute immunity

for “judicial acts” and “acts that are prosecutorial in nature.” Scotto v. Almenas, 143 F.3d 105,

110 (2d Cir. 1998). Parole officers are thus entitled to absolute immunity for their decisions to

“grant, deny, or revoke parole,” which are judicial tasks, as well as for their actions in “initiating

parole revocation proceedings” and “presenting the case for revocation to hearing officers”

which are prosecutorial acts. Id. at 111-12.

When parole officers perform acts that are “administrative or investigatory in nature,”

however, they only enjoy qualified immunity, meaning that they are shielded from liability only

insofar as their conduct does not violate “clearly established constitutional norms of which an

objectively reasonable person should have been aware.” Id. at 110-13. Parole officers can receive

qualified immunity for their actions in preparing violation reports and recommending arrest

warrants, which are administrative and investigatory tasks. Id. at 112.

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Lashley “blatantly lied” during the parole hearing to keep him

incarcerated, because “she hate white people.” (ECF 1 at 7.) The Court cannot determine whether

Parole Officer Lashley is entitled to immunity because it is unclear from the complaint what

exactly she personally alleged did or failed to do that violated Plaintiff’s rights.

2 As discussed further in this order, the Court cannot grant Plaintiff the injunctive relief he

seeks from the State of New York–modification of the terms of his parole–in response to a

Section 1983 complaint.

Thus, even if Parole Officer Lashley is not entitled to absolute immunity, Plaintiff’s

claims against her cannot proceed because Plaintiff does not allege any facts showing that

anything that Parole Officer Wright personally did or failed to do violated Plaintiff’s rights. In

this respect, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint.

C. The Court declines to construe the complaint as a petition brought under § 2254

because Plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative remedies

To the extent Plaintiff wishes to challenge the revocation of his parole, he must do so in a

petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 78-82

(2005) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973) (noting that writ of habeas corpus is

sole remedy for prisoner seeking to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement)).

Before challenging the revocation of his parole, however, a petitioner must first exhaust

all available state court remedies, including any available administrative appeals and state-court

proceedings, such as an Article 78 proceeding. See, e.g., Smith v. Smith, No. 17-CV-0258, 2018

WL 557877, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2018) (discussing exhaustion options in context of a parole

revocation). Then, after exhausting all available state court remedies, Plaintiff may file in this

Court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Section 2254.3

3 To the extent Plaintiff seeks money damages, the favorable-termination rule may

prevent him from doing so. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487-87 (1994) (“[I]n order to

recover damages for [an] allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other

harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a

§ 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal,

expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such

determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus[.]”)

(footnote omitted)); Lee v. Donnaruma, 63 F. App’x 39, 40-41 (2d Cir. 2003) (summary order)

(applying the Heck rule to Section 1983 actions challenging the fact or duration of confinement

based on a parole revocation).

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff proceeds in this matter without the benefit of an attorney. District courts

generally should grant a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint to cure its

defects, unless amendment would be futile. See Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 123-24 (2d Cir.

2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). Indeed, the Second Circuit has

cautioned that district courts “should not dismiss [a pro se complaint] without granting leave to

amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid

claim might be stated.” Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Gomez v.

USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 795 (2d Cir. 1999)). In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the

Court grants Plaintiff 60 days’ leave to amend his complaint to detail his claims, as set forth in

this order.

In the “Statement of Claim” section of the amended complaint form, Plaintiff must

provide a short and plain statement of the relevant facts supporting each claim against each

defendant. If Plaintiff has an address for any named defendant, Plaintiff must provide it. Plaintiff

should include all of the information in the amended complaint that Plaintiff wants the Court to

consider in deciding whether the amended complaint states a claim for relief. That information

should include:

a) the names and titles of all relevant people;

b) a description of all relevant events, including what each defendant did or failed to do,

the approximate date and time of each event, and the general location where each

event occurred;

c) a description of the injuries Plaintiff suffered; and

d) the relief Plaintiff seeks, such as money damages, injunctive relief, or declaratory

relief.

Essentially, Plaintiff’s amended complaint should tell the Court: who violated his

federally protected rights and how; when and where such violations occurred; and why Plaintiff

is entitled to relief.

Because Plaintiff’s amended complaint will completely replace, not supplement, the

original complaint, any facts or claims that Plaintiff wants to include from the original complaint

must be repeated in the amended complaint.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint that complies with the standards

set forth above. Plaintiff must submit the amended complaint to this Court’s Pro Se Intake Unit

within sixty days of the date of this order, caption the document as an “Amended Complaint,”

and label the document with docket number 25-CV-3986 (LLS). An Amended Civil Rights

Complaint form is attached to this order. No summons will issue at this time. If Plaintiff fails to

comply within the time allowed, and he cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the

complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would

not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status 1s denied for the purpose of an

appeal. Cf Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant

demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue).

SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 7, 2025

New York, New York

Louis L. Stanton

U.S.D.J.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

(In the space above enter the full name(s) of the plaintiff(s).) AMENDED

COMPLAINT

-against- under the Civil Rights Act,

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Jury Trial: O Yes oO No

(check one)

Ci CD

(dn the space above enter the full name(s) of the defendant(s). Ifyou

cannot fit the names of all of the defendants in the space provided,

please write “see attached” in the space above and attach an

additional sheet of paper with the full list of names. The names

listed in the above caption must be identical to those contained in

Part I. Addresses should not be included here.)

I. Parties in this complaint:

A. List your name, identification number, and the name and address of your current place of

confinement. Do the same for any additional plaintiffs named. Attach additional sheets of paper

as necessary.

Plaintiff’ s Name

WH eee

Current Institution,

Address eee

B. List all defendants’ names, positions, places of employment, and the address where each defendant

may be served. Make sure that the defendant(s) listed below are identical to those contained in the

above caption. Attach additional sheets of paper as necessary.

Defendant No. 1 Name —s—aiesesesa (aes

Where Currently Employed eee

Address ee

Address __________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Defendant No. 3 Name ___________________________________________ Shield #_________

Where Currently Employed __________________________________________

Address __________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Who did

what? Defendant No. 4 Name ___________________________________________ Shield #_________

Where Currently Employed __________________________________________

Address __________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Defendant No. 5 Name ___________________________________________ Shield #_________

Where Currently Employed __________________________________________

Address __________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

II. Statement of Claim:

State as briefly as possible the facts of your case. Describe how each of the defendants named in the

caption of this complaint is involved in this action, along with the dates and locations of all relevant events.

You may wish to include further details such as the names of other persons involved in the events giving

rise to your claims. Do not cite any cases or statutes. If you intend to allege a number of related claims,

number and set forth each claim in a separate paragraph. Attach additional sheets of paper as necessary.

A. In what institution did the events giving rise to your claim(s) occur?

_______________________________________________________________________________

B. Where in the institution did the events giving rise to your claim(s) occur?

_______________________________________________________________________________

C. What date and approximate time did the events giving rise to your claim(s) occur?

_______________________________________________________________________________

D. Facts:__________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

What

happened _____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Was _____________________________________________________________________________________

anyone

else _____________________________________________________________________________________

involved?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Who else

saw what

happened? III. Injuries:

If you sustained injuries related to the events alleged above, describe them and state what medical

treatment, if any, you required and received.

______________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

IV. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies:

The Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), requires that “[n]o action shall be

brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a

prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are

available are exhausted.” Administrative remedies are also known as grievance procedures.

A. Did your claim(s) arise while you were confined in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility?

Yes ____ No ____

events giving rise to your claim(s).

_____________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

B. Does the jail, prison or other correctional facility where your claim(s) arose have a grievance

procedure?

Yes ____ No ____ Do Not Know ____

C. Does the grievance procedure at the jail, prison or other correctional facility where your claim(s)

arose cover some or all of your claim(s)?

Yes ____ No ____ Do Not Know ____

If YES, which claim(s)?

_______________________________________________________________________________

D. Did you file a grievance in the jail, prison, or other correctional facility where your claim(s) arose?

Yes ____ No ____

If NO, did you file a grievance about the events described in this complaint at any other jail,

prison, or other correctional facility?

Yes ____ No ____

E. If you did file a grievance, about the events described in this complaint, where did you file the

grievance?

_______________________________________________________________________________

1. Which claim(s) in this complaint did you grieve?

______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

2. What was the result, if any?

_______________________________________________________________________________

3. What steps, if any, did you take to appeal that decision? Describe all efforts to appeal to

the highest level of the grievance process.

_______________________________________________________________________________

F. If you did not file a grievance:

1. If there are any reasons why you did not file a grievance, state them here:

_________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

2. If you did not file a grievance but informed any officials of your claim, state who you

informed, when and how, and their response, if any:

G. Please set forth any additional information that is relevant to the exhaustion of your administrative

remedies.

Note: You may attach as exhibits to this complaint any documents related to the exhaustion of your

administrative remedies.

V. Relief:

State what you want the Court to do for you (including the amount of monetary compensation, if any, that

you are seeking and the basis for such amount).

Rev. 01/2010

VI. Previous lawsuits:

A. Have you filed other lawsuits in state or federal court dealing with the same facts involved in this

action?

Yes NO

B. If your answer to A is YES, describe each lawsuit by answering questions | through 7 below. (If

there is more than one lawsuit, describe the additional lawsuits on another sheet of paper, using

the same format.)

1. Parties to the previous lawsuit:

Plaintiff

Defendants

2.Court (if federal court, name the district; if state court, name the county)

3. Docket or Index number

Name of Judge assigned to your case.

5. Approximate date of filing lawsuit

6. Is the case still pending? Yes === No____>

If NO, give the approximate date of disposition.

7. What was the result of the case? (For example: Was the case dismissed? Was there

judgment in your favor? Was the case appealed?)

C. Have you filed other lawsuits in state or federal court otherwise relating to your imprisonment?

Yes No

s —_——

D. If your answer to C is YES, describe each lawsuit by answering questions | through 7 below. (If

there is more than one lawsuit, describe the additional lawsuits on another piece of paper, using

the same format.)

1. Parties to the previous lawsuit:

Plaintiff

Defendants

2. Court (if federal court, name the district; if state court, name the county)

3. Docket or Index number

4, Name of Judge assigned to your case. eee

5. Approximate date of filing lawsuit

Rev. 01/2010

6. Is the case still pending? Yes ____ No ____

If NO, give the approximate date of disposition_________________________________

7. What was the result of the case? (For example: Was the case dismissed? Was there

judgment in your favor? Was the case appealed?) ______________________________

________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Signed this day of , 20 .

Signature of Plaintiff _____________________________________

Inmate Number _____________________________________

Institution Address _____________________________________

_____________________________________

Note: All plaintiffs named in the caption of the complaint must date and sign the complaint and provide

their inmate numbers and addresses.

I declare under penalty of perjury that on this _____ day of _________________, 20__, I am delivering

this complaint to prison authorities to be mailed to the Pro Se Office of the United States District Court for

the Southern District of New York.

Signature of Plaintiff: _____________________________________

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.