govinfo:USCOURTS-nynd-9_22-cv-00638-7

- 1 - 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
_____________________________________ 
 
LEON PETERS,  
 
   Plaintiff, 
 
  -v-      9:22-CV-638 (DNH/CBF) 
 
COUNTY OF ULSTER et al.,  
 
   Defendants. 
_____________________________________ 
 
APPEARANCES:      OF COUNSEL: 
 
LEON PETERS 
Plaintiff, Pro Se 
22-R-1965 
Woodbourne Correctional Facility 
99 Prison Road, P.O. Box 1000 
Woodbourne, NY 12788 
 
SOKOLOFF STERN LLP     KIMBERLY H. LEE, ESQ. 
Attorneys for Defendants 
80 Washington Street, Suite 100 
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 
 
Hon. David N. Hurd, U.S. District Judge: 
 
ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION 
 
On May 31, 2022, pro se plaintiff Leon Peters (“Peters”) and two other unrepresented in-
dividuals filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in the Southern District of New York alleging that 
defendants violated his civil rights while he was confined at the Ulster County Jail.  See Dkt. Nos. 
1–7.  Along with the complaint, plaintiff moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis  (“IFP 
Application”).  See id.   
Because plaintiffs had mislaid venue in the Southern District of New York, the matter was 
sua sponte transferred to this judicial district.  Dkt. Nos. 8, 9.  The matter was initially assigned to 
Case 9:22-cv-00638-DNH-CBF     Document 81     Filed 04/15/26     Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 
 
U.S. District Judge Gary L. Sharpe, who dismissed the other named plaintiffs, granted plaintiff’s 
IFP Application, and afforded him leave to file an amended complaint.  Dkt. No. 14.  After plaintiff 
did so, Dkt. No. 23, Judge Sharpe dismissed plaintiff’s amended complaint for failure to state any 
plausible claims for relief.  Dkt. No. 24. 
Plaintiff appealed.  Dkt. No. 26.  There, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second 
Circuit vacated in part and remanded the case for further proceedings.  Dkt. Nos. 28, 29.  In ac-
cordance with the Mandate, Judge Sharpe reopened the file and directed defendants to respond to 
plaintiff’s: (1) First Amendment and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act 
(“RLUIPA”) claims; (2) Establishment Clause claims; and (3) Equal Protection claims.  Dkt. No. 
30.   
The matter was later reassigned to this Court.  Dkt. No. 43.  In response to Judge Sharpe’s 
order, counsel appeared on behalf of certain defendants and moved to dismiss plaintiff’s remaining 
claims.  Dkt. No. 44.  After the motion was fully briefed, Dkt. Nos. 48, 50, the assigned magistrate 
judge advised by Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) that defendants’ motion to dismiss be 
granted in part.  Dkt. No. 58.   
In particular, the R&R advised that: (1) defendant County of Ulster be substituted in place 
of named defendants Ulster County Jail and Ulster County Sheriff’s Department; (2) defendant be 
directed to answer plaintiff’s amended complaint to the extent it asserted Free Exercise and Equal 
Protection claims against County of Ulster; and (3) plaintiff be given leave to further amend to the 
extent he sought to assert a First Amendment Free Exercise claim against any individual defendant 
at the Ulster County Jail or Sheriff’s Department.  See Dkt. No. 58.  
On March 19, 2025, this Court  adopted the R&R.  Dkt. No. 59.  Thereafter, defendant 
County of Ulster answered, Dkt. No. 60, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, Dkt. No. 64, 
Case 9:22-cv-00638-DNH-CBF     Document 81     Filed 04/15/26     Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 
 
and then, after receiving instructions  from the assigned magistrate judge, Dkt. No. 66, plaintiff 
filed a third amended complaint as well, Dkt. No. 67.  Thereafter, the magistrate judge conducted 
an initial review of the third amended complaint and advised by R&R that the pleading be accepted 
for filing to the extent it asserted: (1) First Amendment Free Exercise and Fourteenth Amendment 
Equal Protection claims against County of Ulster; and (2) a First Amendment Free Exercise claim 
against Ulster County Sergeant Jane Doe.  Dkt. No. 69.   
This Court adopted the second R&R, too.  Dkt. No. 71.  As relevant here, the Order on the 
R&R permitted plaintiff to serve discovery requests on defendant County of Ulster for the limited 
purpose of identifying the Jane Doe defendant.  Id .  In addition, plaintiff was given sixty days in 
which to either file a fourth amended pleading identifying the true name of the Doe defendant or 
to show good cause in writing why he had not yet done so.  Id .  Thereafter, the County of Ulster 
moved to dismiss.  Dkt. No. 72.   
On March 20, 2026, U.S. Magistrate Judge Carla B. Freedman advised by R&R that de-
fendant County of Ulster’s motion to dismiss be granted and plaintiff’s third amended complaint 
be dismissed without leave to further amend.  Dkt. No. 80.  There, Judge Freedman explained that 
plaintiff had not plausibly alleged a ny basis for municipal liability against the County of Ulster, 
which is subject to the  relatively demanding standard first articulated by the Supreme Court in 
Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).   
In addition, Judge Freedman pointed out that plaintiff had failed to timely identify the Doe 
defendant or show good cause for why he had not done so.  Accordingly, Judge Freedman advised 
that the Doe defendant should be dismissed as well.  Finally, in light of the fact that plaintiff had 
been given multiple opportunities to amend his complaint but had not yet identified a plausible 
claim for relief, Judge Freedman recommended dismissal without further leave to amend. 
Case 9:22-cv-00638-DNH-CBF     Document 81     Filed 04/15/26     Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 
 
Neither party has lodged objections, and the time period in which to do so has expired.  See 
Dkt. No. 80.  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. 80) is ACCEPTED; 
2.  Defendant County of Ulster’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 72) is GRANTED; and  
3.  Plaintiff’s third amended complaint (Dkt. No. 67) is DISMISSED without leave to fur-
ther amend.  
The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motions , enter a judgment ac-
cordingly, and close the file.  
 IT IS SO ORDERED.  
       
Dated:  April 14, 2026   
  Utica, New York.  
Case 9:22-cv-00638-DNH-CBF     Document 81     Filed 04/15/26     Page 4 of 4

Passage view · GavelSight