BUTLER v. WILLIE et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
JARON BLUE BUTLER,
Plaintiff
V.
TRAVIS JOHN WILLEY et al.,
Defendants
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:26-CV-00119-LEW
ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION
AND IMPOSING FILING WARNING
On April 17, 2026, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the court, with a copy to
the pro se Plaintiff, Jaron Blue Butler, his Recommended Decision (ECF No. 15) on Plaintiff’s
Second Amended Complaint filed against employees of the Maine Department of Health and
Human Services, law enforcement officers, district attorneys, and others. 	Plaintiff filed an
untimely, initial Objection on May 6, 2026, then filed a late emergency motion for an extension to
object along with a supplemental Objection on May 12, 2026. I have reviewed and considered the
Recommended Decision and the Objections (ECF Nos. 19 & 23), together with the entire record;
I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Recommended Decision;
and I concur with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set
forth in the Recommended Decision. 	In fact, Plaintiff’s proposed civil action arising out of the
seizure of his children and the termination of his parental rights and responsibilities is foreclosed
by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Relief from the consequences of those state court proceedings,
including relief based on challenges to the procedural and evidentiary underpinnings to those
proceedings, is available, if at all, through the appeals process, not through this effort to collaterally
attack a state court judgment in the United States District Court. Accordingly, the Recommended
Case 1:26-cv-00119-LEW Document 30 Filed 07/07/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Decision is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED on the matter of the seizure of the children, the
subsequent conduct of Department of Health and Human Services personnel, and state court
proceedings associated with Plaintiff’s parental rights and responsibilities.
Since April 17, 2026, the date the Recommended Decision was posted on the docket,
Plaintiff has made twelve additional filings—six of which are miscellaneous motions. 	Among
these are motions requesting leave to amend the pleadings. 	Plaintiff’s request to amend his
pleadings to introduce new allegations concerning the removal of his children from the home and
subsequent parental rights proceedings is denied because the proposed amendments would not
overcome the obstacle presented by the Rooker-Feldman bar. Contrary to Plaintiff’s supposition,
claims alleging falsehoods and fabrications on the part of Department of Health and Human
Services personnel challenge the legality of the state court order that relieved Plaintiff of his
parental rights and responsibilities.
Plaintiff’s motions also include a request for leave to amend the pleadings to state more
particularized facts about the circumstances of an automobile stop on February 16, 2024.
According to the filings, Defendant Travis John Willey conducted the stop and arrested Plaintiff
without probable cause. (See ECF Nos. 25, 26.) That request is granted. Plaintiff may submit an
amended complaint that describes the circumstances of the alleged roadside arrest. Following the
Court’s review of the proposed amended complaint, if the allegations state a plausible Fourth
Amendment claim the amended complaint will be served on Mr. Willey by the U.S. Marshal
Service and the case will proceed from there.
As for Plaintiff’s requests about the limitations on paper copies at the Maine State Prison,
the delay associated with prison mail, and so forth (see ECF No. 28), the Court denies the Motion.
Plaintiff does not need copies to serve every named Defendant because the Court would see to the
Case 1:26-cv-00119-LEW Document 30 Filed 07/07/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
service of the Defendants if Plaintiff stated a viable claim against them. 	The delays of which
Plaintiff complains have not denied him meaningful access to the Court.
CONCLUSION
The Recommended Decision (ECF No. 15) of the Magistrate Judge is hereby AFFIRMED
AND ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is DISMISSED. Plaintiff’s Motions for legal
copies and access-to-court rulings by this Court (ECF Nos. 12 and 28) are DENIED. There is no
apparent denial of meaningful access to this Court. Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Extension
of Time to File Objection (ECF No. 20) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Motions for Leave to Amend
(ECF Nos. 22 & 29) are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff has 60 days
from the date of this Order to file an amended pleading concerning the circumstances of his alleged
arrest on February 16, 2024, and his proposed amended complaint will be subject to screening.
Leave to amend is denied in relation to the seizure of Plaintiff’s children from the home and the
ensuing child custody matters because Plaintiff’s filings to date do not suggest the possibility of a
plausible claim for relief against any of the named defendants. 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to
Conduct Discovery (ECF No. 25) is DENIED. If a pleading is introduced that states a viable claim,
the Court will arrange for service and discovery may be authorized after the Defendant answers
the pleadings. Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement Record / Motion to Recognize Lack of Probable
Cause (ECF No. 26) is DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff may include any related allegations in his
proposed amended complaint involving the circumstances of his alleged arrest.
S O O RDERED.
Dated this 7th day of July, 2026.
/s/ Lance E. Walker
C HIEF U.S. DISTRICT J UDGE
Case 1:26-cv-00119-LEW Document 30 Filed 07/07/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>