United States District Court, N.D. New York
TERRY GORDON, Keesville, New York, Plaintiff pro se.
CATHY Y. SHEEHAN, AAG, OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK, STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, The Capitol, Albany, New York, Attorneys for Defendant Jason Scott.
MARK F. WERLE, ESQ., RYAN, SMITH & CARBINE, LTD., Whitehall, New York, Attorney for Defendants Robert Heinsler, Sagamore Institute of the Adirondacks, Inc., and Sagamore Institute, Inc.
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
MAE A. D'AGOSTINO, District Judge.
Pro se plaintiff Terry Gordon ("Plaintiff") commenced this action against Jason Scott ("Scott"), Robert Heinsler ("Heinsler"), Sagamore Institute of the Adirondacks, Inc. and its corporate officers and directors ("Sagamore"), Sagamore Institute, Inc. and its corporate officers and directors ("Sagamore"), and various, unidentified "John Doe" defendants asserting a variety of claims arising out of an incident occurring on October 17, 2010. See Dkt. No. 1-2 at 4. Plaintiff's complaint alleges that on that date, Defendants Scott and Heinsler carried out a conspiracy to violate Plaintiff's rights. See generally id. Plaintiff's complaint also alleges that Sagamore failed to supervise employees and volunteers participating in unlawful activities. See id. at 12-13. Plaintiff seeks $5, 500, 000 in compensation for these violations. See id. at 14.
Currently before the court are Defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Dkt. No. 16-1 at 3; Dkt. No. 18-1 at 2. Plaintiff opposes the motion. See Dkt. No. 19 at 1.
The facts of this case are taken from Plaintiff's amended complaint and are, for the purposes of Defendants' motions, presumed to be true. On October 17, 2010, Plaintiff was detained in the parking lot of the Sagamore Lodge. See Dkt. No. 1-2 at 4. Plaintiff alleges that his detention was the unlawful first step of a scheme to deny him of his rights. See id. According to Plaintiff, Defendants Scott and Heinsler conspired to deny him of his rights and carried out their plan, during which time Defendant Sagamore failed to supervise or stop them. See id. at 4, 12. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Scott and Heinsler took away his muzzleloader, subjected him to various torts, and violated his rights. See id. at 2-4. Plaintiff's complaint includes no other background information regarding the events at issue. See generally id.
Plaintiff's complaint, liberally construed, alleges twenty-eight claims against Defendants, including: (1) violation of his Second Amendment rights; (2) malicious prosecution, in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights; (3) false arrest, in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights; (4) excessive force, in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights; (5) denial of procedural due process, in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights; (6) denial of substantive due process, in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights; (7) conspiracy to commit these violations; (8) violation of his First Amendment rights; (9) violation of his Third Amendment rights; (10) violation of his Fifth Amendment rights; (11) denial of equal protection of the laws, in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights; (12) theft, fraud, and other larcenous acts; (13) intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress; (14) conspiracy, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985; and (15) fourteen claims pursuant to New York State law. See id.
III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff originally filed this action on January 18, 2013 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Essex County. See Dkt. No. 1 at 1. Defendants removed to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3). See id. at 2.
After the action was removed to this Court, all named Defendants filed motions to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Dkt. No. 16-1 at 3; Dkt. No. 18-1 at 2. Plaintiff has opposed these motions. See Dkt. No. 19.
Thereafter, as a result of actions allegedly taken by Plaintiff against the Sagamore Institute and its employees, Defendants Heinsler and Sagamore filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Plaintiff. See generally Dkt. No. 20-1. Defendants Heinsler and Sagamore Institute also seek leave to amend their March 1, ...