UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------X FREDERICK GROSS, Pro Se,

Plaintiff, ORDER -against- CV 24-1722 (GRB) (AYS)

JAMES C. JOHNSON – DETECTIVE BADGE #1609 in his individual and official capacity

COUNTY OF SUFFOLK – municipality responsible for the actions of their agents and employees

Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------------X ANNE Y. SHIELDS, United States Magistrate Judge: By Report and Recommendation dated June 30, 2205, this Court recommended that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and that Plaintiff be permitted to replead solely to assert a Bivens claim against Defendant Johnson. (Docket Entry (“DE”) [60].) That Report and Recommendation was adopted in its entirety by the District Court on September 3, 2025, and Plaintiff was afforded thirty (30) days to file an amended compliant solely to assert a Bivens claim against Defendant Johnson. (Order of Brown, J., dated Sept. 3, 2025.) On September 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his Complaint, seeking to add three individuals and the United States of America as defendants in this action. (DE [77].) A copy of the Proposed Amended Complaint was attached to Plaintiff’s motion. (DE [77-1].) In addition to adding new defendants to the action – against whom Bivens claims are alleged – the Proposed Amended Complaint also contains causes of action for malicious prosecution, due process violations, unlawful search and seizure, a purported violation of

(h) by the United States, violations of the Federal Tort Claims Act, intentional infliction of emotional 1 distress, battery and negligence, the majority of which were dismissed, with prejudice and without leave to replead, by the District Court. This Court’s Report and Recommendation, adopted by the District Court’s September 3, 2025 Order, was unambiguous and crystal clear that Plaintiff was only afforded leave to replead

to assert a Bivens claim against Defendant Johnson. Plaintiff was not granted leave to amend his Complaint to add new defendants or to replead any other causes of action. Yet this is precisely what Plaintiff attempts to do. Plaintiff’s motion to amend is denied for failure to comply with Court Orders. Moreover, even if the Court were to consider Plaintiff’s motion to amend on the merits, it fails on the grounds of futility. The applicable statute of limitations for a Bivens claim arising in New York is three years. See Hogan v. Fischer,

(2d Cir. 2013). Plaintiff seeks to add the newly named individual defendants based on interactions he had with them on January 27, 2022 and February 8, 2022. (DE [77-1] ¶¶ 5, 12.) At the very latest, the statute of limitations for such claims against the proposed individual defendants expired on February 8, 2025. In his

motion to amend, Plaintiff admits to having known about these individuals for “the past year and a half.” (DE [77] at ¶ I.) Yet, he made no effort to include them in this lawsuit until after the statute of limitations expired and after Defendants’ motions to dismiss were granted. Permitting Plaintiff to amend his Complaint now to include such individuals would be futile. With respect to the claims asserted against the United States, as this Court already found in its Report and Recommendation, which, again, was adopted by the District Court in its entirety, sovereign immunity protects the United States from most of the claims asserted by Plaintiff. As for the claim alleged pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, Plaintiff failed to

2 exhaust his administrative remedies before pursuing such a claim and, accordingly, the claim was dismissed with prejudice. (DE [60].) For all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to amend is denied. Plaintiff is afforded two (2) weeks to file an Amended Complaint solely asserting a Bivens claim against

Defendant Johnson, as previously directed by the District Court. Upon receipt of a proper Amended Complaint, the Court will lift the stay of discovery previously imposed and discovery will commence.

SO ORDERED: Dated: Central Islip, New York September 24, 2025 /s/ Anne. Y. Shields ANNE Y. SHIELDS United States Magistrate Judge

3