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

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________
ANTONIO BENNETT,
Plaintiff,
-v- 	1:26-CV-630 (AJB/PJE)
ACTING N.Y.S. DIVISION
OF PAROLE et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
ANTONIO BENNETT
Plaintiff, Pro Se
23-11 31st Road, Apt. 416
Astoria, NY 11106
Hon. Anthony Brindisi, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
On April 8, 2026, pro se plaintiff Antonio Bennett (“plaintiff”) filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action against defendants “Acting N.Y.S. Division of Parole” and “Letitia James, Attorney Gen-
eral” by submitting a fourteen-page form civil rights complaint along with over 600 pages of as-
sorted exhibits.1 Dkt. No. 1. Along with his complaint, plaintiff moved for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP Application”), Dkt. No. 3, and sought the appointment of counsel, Dkt. No.
3. Thereafter, plaintiff filed ten separate letters “supplementing” the complaint, Dkt. Nos. 5–14,
1 Plaintiff filed a second civil action on this date against the same named parties. That case was assigned to Chief
U.S. District Judge Brenda K. Sannes, who dismissed the pleading for substantially the same pleading deficiencies
that have been identified in the operative pleading in this action. See Bennett v. Acting N.Y.S. Division of Parole et
al., 1:26-CV-631 (BKS/DJS) at Dkt. No. 18.
Case 1:26-cv-00630-AJB-PJE Document 18 Filed 10/15/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
and then filed one letter motion seeking to strike the final “supplement” that he had most recently
submitted, Dkt. No. 15.
On September 8, 2026, U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul J. Evangelista granted plaintiff’s IFP
Application and advised by Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) that plaintiff’s complaint be dis-
missed with leave to amend and that the motion for appointment of counsel be denied without
prejudice. Dkt. No. 16. As Judge Evangelista explained, plaintiff’s complaint ran afoul of Rules
8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because, although his submissions were “exten-
sive,” the pleading’s “allegations are not organized in a manner that permits the Court or Defend-
ants to determine which factual allegations support which claims, which claims are asserted against
which Defendants, or the legal and factual bases for each claim.” Id. Accordingly, Judge Evan-
gelista recommended that plaintiff be permitted to try to replead. Id.
Plaintiff has lodged untimely objections. Dkt. No. 17. Out of an abundance of caution in
light of plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the R&R. Based on
that review, the Court overrules plaintiff’s objections. The R&R is accepted and will be adopted.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. The Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 16) is ACCEPTED;
2. Plaintiff’s letter motion (Dkt. No. 15) is DENIED as moot;
3. Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 3) is DENIED;
4. Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with leave to amend;
5. Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days in which to file an amended complaint that conforms
with the instructions set forth in the R&R;
Case 1:26-cv-00630-AJB-PJE Document 18 Filed 10/15/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
6. If plaintiff timely files an amended complaint, the Clerk is directed to REFER the file
to Judge Evangelista for further action as appropriate; and
7. If plaintiff does not timely file an 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: October 15, 2026
Utica, New York.
Case 1:26-cv-00630-AJB-PJE Document 18 Filed 10/15/26 Page 3 of 3