BUTLER v. KENNEBEC COUNTY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MAINE

ISAIAH Q.N. BUTLER, )

)

Plaintiff )

)

v. ) 1:25-cv-00274-LEW

)

KENNEBEC COUNTY, et al., )

)

Defendants )

RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER REVIEW

OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, who is in custody at the Kennebec County Correctional Facility, filed a

complaint regarding the circumstances of his arrest and the related state criminal charges.1

(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).

1 Plaintiff lists “all positions cops, C.O.s, judges, P.O.,” Kennebec County Jail, August Police Department,

Gardiner Police Department, Maine, Marshall McCamish, Officer Michael Caputo, Officer Troy Worster,

Colin Kinney, Desmond Nutter, Connor Herrold, Maeghan Maloney, and Shannon Flaherty. (Complaint

at 2–3.)

Following a review of Plaintiff’s complaint, I recommend the Court dismiss

Plaintiff’s complaint.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges that on December 31, 2024, he was drinking alcohol at a bar with

another person. (Attachment to Complaint at 1, ECF No. 1-1.) Plaintiff reports that he

consumed a total of seven alcoholic drinks, which included four “shots.” (Id.) Plaintiff

asserts that he damaged a window of a woman’s car. (Id.)

Plaintiff further asserts that when he was at home later, his sister called the police

on him “for no reason” and then assaulted him. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff alleges that he also

called the police. (Id.) When two officers arrived, Plaintiff refused medical treatment and

then was told to leave the area because he was trespassing. (Id.) At that point, he yelled

at one of the officers (Officer Worster), who then “grabbed” him. (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that in his state court criminal case, he has been denied Brady

material, has yet to speak with a probation officer or physically be in court, and has received

insufficient discovery. (Id. at 3.)

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).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff has not alleged any facts against and, therefore, has not alleged an

actionable claim against most of the individuals named as defendants: Marshall McCamish,

Desmond Nutter, Connor Herrold, Maeghan Maloney, Shannon Flaherty, and the

defendants identified only by their title (e.g., police officers, probation offers, etc.).

Furthermore, Plaintiff’s allegations regarding Defendants Caputo and Worster would not

support a finding that Defendants violated a federal right and, therefore, Plaintiff has not

alleged an actionable claim against them.2

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to state a claim against Kennebec County Jail, the

Augusta Police Department, and the Gardiner Police Department, the claims would be

against Kennebec County and the municipalities of Augusta and Gardiner. See Henschel

v. Worcester Police Dept., 445 F.2d 624, 624 (1st Cir. 1971) (dismissing § 1983 claim

against police department because it was not suable entity apart from the municipality).

For a municipality to be liable for a constitutional deprivation, the plaintiff must “identify

a municipal ‘policy’ or ‘custom’ that caused the plaintiff’s injury.” Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs

v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997). Plaintiff has not alleged the existence of a policy or

custom that would serve as a basis for the liability of Kennebec County or the

municipalities of Augusta and Gardiner.

2 To the extent Plaintiff would contend that his assertion that Defendant Worster “grabbed” him supports

an excessive force claim, Plaintiff’s argument would fail. A mere allegation that an officer “grabbed” an

individual does not support a reasonable inference that the officer used excessive force.

Finally, even if Plaintiff’s complaint could be construed to allege a claim against a

defendant based on Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the state court criminal proceedings,

Plaintiff cannot proceed on the claim in this court. The Supreme Court’s decision Younger

v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) supports abstention from the exercise of jurisdiction when a

petitioner seeks relief in federal court from ongoing state criminal proceedings. See Sprint

Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 78 (2013) (noting that Younger “preclude[s]

federal intrusion into ongoing state criminal prosecutions”); In re Justices of Superior

Court Dept. of Mass. Trial Court, 218 F.3d 11, 16 (1st Cir. 2000) (“The federal courts have

long recognized the ‘fundamental policy against federal interference with state criminal

proceedings.’” (quoting Younger, 401 U.S. at 46)). Under Younger, federal courts must

abstain from interfering in state court proceedings “when the moving party has an adequate

remedy at law and will not suffer irreparable injury if denied equitable relief.” 401 U.S. at

43-44.

The elements of mandatory abstention consist of the following: “(1) the [state]

proceedings are judicial (as opposed to legislative) in nature; (2) they implicate important

state interests; and (3) they provide an adequate opportunity to raise federal constitutional

challenges.” Bettencourt v. Bd. of Registration in Med. of Commonwealth of Mass.,

904 F.2d 772, 777 (1st Cir. 1990). The state criminal proceeding referenced in Plaintiff’s

complaint is judicial in nature, implicates important state interests associated with the

State’s administration of its laws, and affords Plaintiff an adequate opportunity to raise

federal constitutional challenges. Abstention, therefore, is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing analysis, after a review of Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A, I recommend the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint.

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 1st day of July, 2025.