HENDERSON v. MAINE STATE PRISON et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
KURTIS HENDERSON, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	1:25-cv-00412-SDN
)
MAINE STATE PRISON, et al., 	)
)
Defendants 	)
SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDED DECISION
On August 26, 2025, after a preliminary review of Plaintiff’s complaint in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A, I recommended that the Court dismiss
Plaintiff’s complaint, unless Plaintiff amended the complaint “with sufficient facts to
support an actionable claim.” (Recommended Decision at 3, ECF No. 6.) 	I noted that
although Plaintiff referred to an assault in his filing, he “provide[d] no other information
from which the Court could determine whether Plaintiff has alleged an actionable claim.”
(Id.)
On September 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in which he alleges
that on May 30, 2025, during a lockdown, Defendant Arugue, a corrections officer at the
Maine State Prison, became angry with and threatened Plaintiff, tackled him and “knelt on
[his] neck with enough pressure that [he] could not breathe.” (Amended Complaint at 2,
ECF No. 9; Attachment to Amended Complaint, ECF No. 9-1.) Plaintiff also alleges that
following an investigation, Defendant Arugue “was placed on administrative leave for [the]
incident.” (Amended Complaint at 2-3.) 	Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ conduct
Case 1:25-cv-00412-SDN Document 12 Filed 11/04/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

constitutes a violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Id. at
2.)
A claim of constitutional harm caused by a state actor is actionable under the Civil
Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides, in relevant part:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom,
or usage, of any State …, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of
the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the
deprivation 	of 	any 	rights, 	privileges, 	or 	immunities 	secured 	by 	the
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law,
suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress ….
42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	“Section 1983 provides a cause of action when an individual, acting
under color of state law, deprives a person of constitutional rights.” 	Saldivar v. Racine,
818 F.3d 14, 18 (1st Cir. 2016). To maintain a claim under section 1983, “a plaintiff must
show that ‘the challenged conduct [is] attributable to a person acting under color of state
law’ and that ‘the conduct must have worked a denial of rights secured by the Constitution
or by federal law.’” Freeman v. Town of Hudson, 714 F.3d 29, 37 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting
Soto v. Flores, 103 F.3d 1056, 1061 (1st Cir. 1997)).
The Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive bail, excessive fines, and the infliction
of cruel and unusual punishment. 	U.S. Const. amend. VIII. 	“A punishment is cruel and
unusual if it involves the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Elliott v. Norwood,
Nos. 1:18-cv-00449-JAW, 1:18-cv-00450-JAW, 2019 WL 521592, at *2 (D. Me. Feb. 11,
2019) (citing Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 173 (1976)). A claim of excessive force in
violation of the Eighth Amendment “‘has two components—one subjective, focusing on
the defendant’s motive for his conduct, and the other objective, focusing on the conduct’s
Case 1:25-cv-00412-SDN Document 12 Filed 11/04/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

effect.’” 	Staples v. Gerry, 923 F.3d 7, 13 (1st Cir. 2019) (quoting Wright v. Goord, 554
F.3d 255, 268 (2d Cir. 2009)).
At this stage of the proceeding, affording Plaintiff all reasonable inferences from
the alleged facts, and consistent with the Court’s obligation to construe a pro se plaintiff’s
complaint liberally, I find that Plaintiff has alleged enough facts to proceed on an excessive
force claim against Defendant Arugue.
Plaintiff also joined as defendants the Maine State Prison and a John Doe. 	First,
because Plaintiff has not alleged facts that would support a claim against another
individual, Plaintiff also cannot proceed against John Doe. 	In addition, Plaintiff cannot
pursue the action against the Maine State Prison, which is an agency of the State of Maine.
Subject to limited exceptions not applicable in this case, the State of Maine and its agencies
have immunity under the Eleventh Amendment against suits brought by citizens in federal
court, regardless of the form of relief requested. Poirier v. Mass. Dep’t of Corr., 558 F.3d
92, 97 n. 6 (1st Cir. 2009) (“A plaintiff may seek prospective injunctive relief against a
state official, but may not obtain such relief against a state or its agency because of the
sovereign immunity bar of the Eleventh Amendment.”). 	Additionally, while a federal
district court would have jurisdiction under the Civil Rights Act over claims against
persons exercising state authority, § 1983 does not authorize claims against the state or its
agencies. 	Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64 (1989); see also Nieves–
Marquez v. Puerto Rico, 353 F.3d 108, 124 (1st Cir. 2003) (“No cause of action for
damages is stated under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a state, its agency, or its officials acting
in an official capacity.”).
Case 1:25-cv-00412-SDN Document 12 Filed 11/04/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

Because Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to support a claim against Defendant
Arugue, I withdraw the original recommended decision. For the reasons explained herein,
I recommend the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against the Maine State Prison and John
Doe but permit Plaintiff to proceed on an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against
Defendant Arugue.
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 4th day of November, 2025.
Case 1:25-cv-00412-SDN Document 12 Filed 11/04/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>