BUTLER v. WILLIE et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
JARON BLUE BUTLER, 	)
)
Plaintiff 	)
)
v. 	) 	1:26-cv-00119-LEW
)
TRAVIS JOHN WILLEY, et al., 	)
)
Defendants 	)
RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER REVIEW
OF PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, who is in custody at the Maine State Prison, seeks to assert a federal claim
based upon constitutional violations that the defendants, who are employees of the Maine
Department of Health and Human Services, allegedly committed in the context of state child
protection proceedings. (Second Amended Complaint, ECF Nos. 11, 13.)1 Plaintiff filed an
application to proceed without prepayment of fees (ECF No. 4), which application the Court
granted. (Order, ECF No. 5.)
In accordance with the statute that governs actions where a plaintiff proceeds without
prepayment of fees, a preliminary review of Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is
appropriate. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Additionally, Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is
subject to screening “before docketing, if feasible or … as soon as practicable after docketing,”
1On consecutive days, Plaintiff filed two amended complaints. I considered both filings collectively as
Plaintiff’s second amended complaint.
Case 1:26-cv-00119-LEW Document 15 Filed 04/17/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
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).
After a review of Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, I recommend the Court dismiss
the matter.
LEGAL S TANDARD
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 § 1915, 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). 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
Case 1:26-cv-00119-LEW Document 15 Filed 04/17/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
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).
D ISCUSSION
Plaintiff alleges that the defendants unlawfully seized his children and, through
exaggerated allegations and false statements, sought and obtained a court order terminating his
parental rights.
“The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents the lower federal courts from exercising
jurisdiction over cases brought by ‘state-court losers’ challenging ‘state-court judgments
rendered before the district court proceedings commenced.’” 	Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S.
459, 460 (2006) (quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280,
284 (2005), and discussing Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) and District
of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983)). In general, “the proper
forum for challenging an unlawful state court ruling” is the state appellate system followed
by a petition for review by the United States Supreme Court. Davison v. Gov’t of Puerto
Rico-Puerto Rico Firefighters Corps., 471 F.3d 220, 223 (1st Cir. 2006); 28 U.S.C. § 1257.
This Court previously observed that “multiple federal courts have acknowledged
that federal cases seeking to challenge the termination of parental rights by state courts fall
within the heartland of cases preempted by the Rooker–Feldman doctrine.” Miller v.
Nichols, 592 F. Supp. 2d 191, 195-96 (D. Me. 2009) (citing Hoblock v. Albany County Bd.
Case 1:26-cv-00119-LEW Document 15 Filed 04/17/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
of Elections, 422 F.3d 77, 87 (2d Cir.2005) (“Suppose a state court . . . terminates a father’s
parental rights and orders the state to take custody of his son. If the father sues in federal
court for the return of his son on grounds that the state judgment violates his federal
substantive due-process rights as a parent, he is complaining of an injury caused by the
state judgment and seeking its reversal. This he may not do, regardless of whether he raised
any constitutional claims in state court, because only the Supreme Court may hear appeals
from state-court judgments.”); Doe v. Mann, 415 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2005)
(concluding that a challenge to the termination of parental rights fell “within the traditional
boundaries of the Rooker–Feldman doctrine” while ultimately holding that there was
jurisdiction based on a narrow exception for “child custody proceedings involving Indian
children”).
Through this action, Plaintiff challenges the state court proceeding that resulted in the
termination of his parental rights. In other words, Plaintiff seeks relief from the state court’s
order terminating his parental rights. As with the claim asserted in Miller, Plaintiff’s claim is
precluded by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Dismissal, therefore, is warranted.
Even if Plaintiff’s claim was not barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, dismissal is
appropriate because Plaintiff’s second amended complaint lacks sufficient facts to support an
actionable claim. 	For instance, Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants removed [his] children
without a warrant and without exigent circumstances,” that he was “denied a meaningful
opportunity to be heard,” and that “Defendants interfered with [his] fundamental right to
family integrity,” but has not alleged facts to support the allegations. Plaintiff’s conclusory
assertions are insufficient to state an actionable claim. 	See Young v. Wells Fargo Bank,
Case 1:26-cv-00119-LEW Document 15 Filed 04/17/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
N.A., 717 F.3d 224, 231 (1st Cir. 2013) (complaint may not consist entirely of “conclusory
allegations that merely parrot the relevant legal standard.”). 	The Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure “demand[] more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation.” 	Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “A pleading that offers labels
and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”
Id.
CONCLUSION
After a review of Plaintiff’s second amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915
and 1915A, for the reasons explained above, I recommend the Court dismiss the matter.2
NOTICE
Any objection to the Court’s orders on Plaintiff’s motions shall be filed
in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72.
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 17th day of April, 2026.
2 Plaintiff recently filed several motions regarding his desire to obtain records regarding the state court
proceedings and to preserve certain evidence. (Motions, ECF Nos. 8, 9, 14.) Because I recommend the
dismissal of the matter, I deny the motions.
Case 1:26-cv-00119-LEW Document 15 Filed 04/17/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>