HART v. STATE OF MAINE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
ROBERT JAMES HART, )
)
Plaintiff )
)
v. ) 2:23-cv-00169-JDL
)
STATE OF MAINE DEPARTMENT )
OF CORRECTIONS, et al., )
)
Defendants )
RECOMMENDED DECISION
In accordance with a prior Court order, on November 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed a report
regarding the status of his state court criminal proceeding. (Status Report, ECF No. 11.) The
Court previously stayed this action, which is based on some of the circumstances underlying
the state court criminal matter. (Order, ECF No. 8.) In his recent status report, Plaintiff
expressed concern about the delay in the resolution of his state court matter and asked this
Court for an “injunction.” To the extent Plaintiff asks the Court for emergency injunctive
relief, I recommend the Court deny Plaintiff’s request.
Plaintiff evidently wants the Court to direct the state court or some of the participants
in the state court matter to take certain action regarding the charges pending against him in
state court. As I previously explained, the Younger doctrine requires abstention. (See Order at
3-4.) That is, the principles articulated by the Supreme Court in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S.
37 (1971) have “led the federal courts to abstain from interfering with state court proceedings
even where defendants claim violations of important federal rights.” In re Justices of Superior
Case 2:23-cv-00169-NT Document 12 Filed 12/06/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Court Dept. of Massachusetts Trial Court, 218 F.3d 11, 17 (1st Cir. 2000). Because abstention
is required for the reasons set forth in the Court’s prior order, because the length of the alleged
pretrial detention (approximately one year) would not in and of itself constitute an
“extraordinary circumstance” to qualify as an exception to the abstention doctrine,1 and
because Defendant has not otherwise provided record evidence to support a claim for
immediate injunctive relief,2 I recommend the Court deny Plaintiff’s request for injunctive
relief and maintain the stay of the proceedings.
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. A responsive memorandum and shall be filed
within fourteen (14) days after the filing of the objection.
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 6th day of December, 2023.
1 See Christian Action Network v. Maine, 679 F. Supp. 2d 140, 145 (D. Me. 2010) (“Extraordinary
circumstances include bad faith, harassment and extreme bias; great and immediate irreparable harm to core
constitutional values . . .”).
2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, which would govern Plaintiff’s request for an immediate injunction,
provides in relevant part:
The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the
adverse party or its attorney only if:
(A) Specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that
immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before
the adverse party can be heard in opposition.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1).
Case 2:23-cv-00169-NT Document 12 Filed 12/06/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>