The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
ISAIAH BUTLER, )
)
Plaintiff )
)
v. ) 1:25-cv-00233-LEW
)
HANNAH SIMMONS, et al., )
)
Defendants )
RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER REVIEW
OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, who is in custody at the Kennebec County Correctional Facility, seeks to
recover monetary damages from various prison officials and the Kennebec County
Correctional Facility based on a search of his cell and subsequent actions by jail officers.
(Complaint, ECF No. 1.)
In addition to his complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed without prepayment
of fees and costs (ECF No. 2), which motion the Court granted. (Order, ECF No. 3.) In
accordance with the governing statute, a preliminary review of Plaintiff’s complaint is
appropriate. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Additionally, Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to
screening “before docketing, if feasible or … as soon as practicable after docketing,”
because he is “a prisoner seek[ing] redress from a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
Following a review of Plaintiff’s complaint, I recommend the Court dismiss the
matter.
LEGAL STANDARD
28 U.S.C. § 1915, is designed to ensure meaningful access to the federal courts for
individuals unable to pay the cost of bringing an action. When a party is proceeding
pursuant to the statute, however, “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court
determines,” inter alia, that the action is “frivolous or malicious” or “fails to state a claim
on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). “Dismissals [under § 1915]
are often made sua sponte prior to the issuance of process, so as to spare prospective
defendants the inconvenience and expense of answering such complaints.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989).
In addition to the review contemplated by § 1915, Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to
screening under the Prison Litigation Reform Act because Plaintiff currently is incarcerated
and seeks redress from governmental entities and officers. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c).
The § 1915A screening requires courts to “identify cognizable claims or dismiss the
complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint (1) is frivolous, malicious, or
fails to state a claim …; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
When considering whether a complaint states a claim for which relief may be
granted, courts must assume the truth of all well-plead facts and give the plaintiff the
benefit of all reasonable inferences therefrom. Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuno-Burset, 640
F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A self-represented
plaintiff is not exempt from this framework, but the court must construe his complaint
‘liberally’ and hold it ‘to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.’” Waterman v. White Interior Sols., No. 2:19-cv-00032-JDL, 2019 WL 5764661,
at *2 (D. Me. Nov. 5, 2019) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)). “This
is not to say that pro se plaintiffs are not required to plead basic facts sufficient to state a
claim.” Ferranti v. Moran, 618 F.2d 888, 890 (1st Cir. 1980).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
According to Plaintiff, on March 26, 2025, while he was in the jail library, two
officers searched his cell and found a sharpened toothbrush. (Complaint at 3.) A few hours
later, other officers issued Plaintiff a “disciplinary.” (Id.) Later, another officer offered
Plaintiff a “pending re-class.” (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that he never received a “D-board or
was officially re-classed” and “[a]dministrators [] never acknowledged this issue.” (Id.)
DISCUSSION
The legal basis for Plaintiff’s claim is not apparent from a review of Plaintiff’s
complaint. Plaintiff has not referenced a constitutional provision, a federal statute, or any
other legal authority as a basis for his claim. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to assert a due
process claim, Plaintiff fails because he has not alleged that he was deprived of a liberty or
property interest. See McKenny v. Farrington, No. 2:16-cv-00630-JAW, 2017 WL
825280, at *2 (D. Me. Mar. 2, 2017) (citing Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 219 (2011)).
If Plaintiff attempts to assert a claim related to a possible reclassification, Plaintiff’s
allegations regarding his reclassification or the failure to reclassify him are insufficient to
state a constitutional violation as he has failed to allege any circumstances that would
support a finding that his classification resulted in an “‘atypical and significant hardship
… in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.’” Inman v. Austin, No. 2:15-cv-
00267-JAW, 2015 WL 7770826, at *3 (D. Me. Aug. 24, 2015) (quoting Sandin v. Conner,
515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995)). In sum, Plaintiff has failed to allege an actionable claim.
Dismissal, therefore, is warranted.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing analysis, after a review of Plaintiff’s complaint in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A, I recommend the Court dismiss the matter.
NOTICE
A party may file objections to those specified portions of a magistrate
judge’s report or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the district
court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within fourteen
(14) days of being served with a copy thereof.
Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right
to de novo review by the district court and to appeal the district court’s order.
/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 26th day of June, 2025.