govinfo:USCOURTS-nynd-9_25-cv-00516-2

- 1 - 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
_____________________________________ 
 
MICHAEL LEE DOANE,  
 
   Plaintiff, 
 
  -v-      9:25-CV-516 (DNH/MJK) 
 
KING et al.,  
 
   Defendants. 
_____________________________________ 
 
APPEARANCES:      OF COUNSEL: 
 
MICHAEL LEE DOANE 
Plaintiff, Pro Se 
24-B-1292 
Clinton Correctional Facility 
P.O. Box 2001 
Dannemora, NY 12929 
 
HON. LETITIA JAMES     ALEXANDRA L. GALUS, ESQ. 
New York State Attorney General    Assistant Attorney General 
Attorneys for Defendants 
The Capitol 
Albany, NY 12224 
 
Hon. David N. Hurd, U.S. District Judge: 
 
ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION 
 
On April 28, 2025, pro se plaintiff Michael Lee Doane (“plaintiff”) filed this 42 U.S.C. § 
1983 action alleging that John and Joe Doe officials violated his civil rights while he was confined 
at Clinton Correctional Facility.  See Dkt. No. 1.  Along with his complaint, plaintiff moved for 
leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”).  Dkt. Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7. 
On June 27, 2025, this Court granted plaintiff ’s IFP Application and conditionally dis-
missed plaintiff’s pleading with an opportunity to amend.  Dkt. No. 9.  As the Court explained at 
Case 9:25-cv-00516-DNH-MJK     Document 28     Filed 04/29/26     Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 
 
the time, plaintiff had failed to plausibly allege the “ personal involvement” of any of the Doe 
defendants.  See id .  Thereafter, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, Dkt. No. 11, w hich this 
Court accepted fo r filing to the extent that it stated  certain § 1983 Eighth Amendment claims  
against the Does, Dkt. No. 12.  The Court directed service on defendant King for the limited pur-
pose of facilitating fact discovery.  See id.. 
King answered the pleading.  Dkt. No. 19.  But on December 11, 2025, defendant’s counsel 
filed a suggestion of death advising the Court that plaintiff had died on or about October 30, 2025.  
Dkt. No. 22.  Defendant’s counsel further sought a stay of pre-trial deadlines pending a determi-
nation of whether a motion for substitution might be forthcoming.  Dkt. No. 23.   
On December 17, 2025, U.S. Magis trate Judge Mitchell J. Katz reviewed the filings and  
entered a text order staying the relevant deadlines.  Dkt. No. 24.  At that time, Judge Katz explained 
that a motion for substitution must be made within ninety days or this action would be subject to 
dismissal.  Id .  That  text order was  mailed to plaintiff ’s last known address but  returned to the 
Court as undeliverable.  Dkt. No. 25. 
On April 8, 2026, aft er the relevant deadlines expired, Judge Katz advised by Report & 
Recommendation (“R&R”) that plaintiff ’s amended complaint be dismissed without prejudice.  
Dkt. No. 26.  As Judge Katz explained, plaintiff ’s § 1983 action could theoretically proceed 
through an appropriate representative of his estate (such as a plaintiff-executor), but that absent a 
timely motion to substitute a new plaintiff, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure required the action 
to be dismissed.  See id. 
Neither party has lodged objections, and the time period in which to do so has expired.  See 
Dkt. No. 26.  The R&R was mailed to plaintiff’s last known address but has  again been returned 
Case 9:25-cv-00516-DNH-MJK     Document 28     Filed 04/29/26     Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 
 
as undeliverable.  Dkt. No. 27.  Upon review for clear error , the R&R is accepted and will be 
adopted.  See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). 
Therefore, it is 
ORDERED that 
1.  The Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 26) is ACCEPTED; and  
2.  Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Dkt. No. 11) is DISMISSED without prejudice. 
The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motion , enter a judgment ac-
cordingly, and close the file.  
 IT IS SO ORDERED.  
       
Dated:  April 29, 2026   
  Utica, New York.  
Case 9:25-cv-00516-DNH-MJK     Document 28     Filed 04/29/26     Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight