REARDON v. STROUT et al

1
“UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
____________________________________
)
NATHAN REARDON, 	)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	(No. 1:25-cv-00188-MSM (D. Me.))
KEVIN STROUT, et al, 	) 	(related to No. 1:25-cr-00061-LEW)
Defendants. 	)
____________________________________)
ORDER
Mary S. McElroy, United States District Judge.
This matter came before me after the recusal of the judges of the United States
District Court for the District of Maine, and I was designated to hear it by the Chief
Judge of this Court. (ECF No. 1). Before the Court is a civil action filed by Nathan
Reardon against everyone, it seems, involved in the revocation of his supervised
release for having attempted to obtain COVID-19 pandemic-related relief funds in
violation of a specific prohibition in his conditions of release. He has sued a defendant
“associated with Maine State Housing,” someone “affiliated with” Penquis CAP
(Community Action Program), the Sheriff’s office that arrested him, his probation
officer, the Assistant United States Attorney prosecuting him and the Acting United
States Attorney for Maine.
The instant case began with Mr. Reardon’s indictment filed in United States
v. Reardon, No. 21-cv-00061-LEW-1 on a number of charges alleging fraudulent
Case 1:25-cv-00188-MSM Document 12 Filed 02/24/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
attempts, including through wire communications, to secure funds from the federal
government that were intended to provide relief to those affected by the COVID-19
pandemic. (ECF No. 20). Mr. Reardon pled guilty and was sentenced on November
3, 2022, to twenty months’ incarceration, followed by three years of supervised
release. 	Along with the general conditions, a special condition was imposed that
provided that:
Defendant shall not incur new credit charges or open additional lines of
credit without the supervising officer’s advance approval. 	Defendant
shall not apply for any pandemic-related financial assistance.
See No. 25-cv-00188-MSM, Exh. 1-1, Condition 7(t).
According to an account written by the sentencing judge, Mr. Reardon began
the supervised release portion of his sentence on July 3, 2022, but by August was
already facing allegations of violation. 	(No. 21-cv-00061-LEW, ECF No. 241.) 	His
release was revoked, and he was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment, to be
followed by 25 months of supervised release. The docket of No. 21-cv-00061-LEW is
replete with subsequent activity concerning attempts by the government to revoke
Mr. Reardon’s release.
Relevant to this Court’s pending matter is a revocation that occurred on April
20, 2022, when, after an evidentiary hearing at which he was represented by counsel,
Mr. Reardon was found to have applied 11 times for COVID-related rental assistance,
in violation of Condition 7(t). 	The defendants sued here were each in some way
involved in that proceeding, albeit some of them tangentially. 	At the conclusion of
Case 1:25-cv-00188-MSM Document 12 Filed 02/24/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
the hearing, on April 20, 2022, Mr. Reardon’s release was revoked. No. 25-cv-00188-
MSM, ECF No. 1-2.
On March 11, 2025, Mr. Reardon filed a Motion to modify his supervised
release in various respects. No. 21-cv-00061-LEW, ECF No. 230. While that Motion
was pending, and four days before it was partially denied and partially granted, Mr.
Reardon filed the civil action that is now before the Court. In this action, Mr. Reardon
harkens back to the hearing of April 20, 2022, and contends that he was detained
unlawfully and was maliciously prosecuted. 	He seeks compensatory and punitive
damages. (ECF No. 1)
The Complaint was accompanied by an Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (ECF No. 3). 	That application triggers a review of the Complaint to
determine whether it states a plausible federal claim for relief. 	28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). If it does not, it is subject to dismissal.
Even at this early stage of the case, it is evident to the Court that Mr. Reardon’s
claims against these defendants are precluded. 	His claims for damages against the
Acting and Assistant Attorneys General run headfirst into prosecutorial immunity.
Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 485 (1991), citing
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409,
422-23 (1976). 	Second, his contentions, as described in the Complaint (ECF No. 1)
were fully litigated at the revocation hearing on April 20, 2022, and were rejected on
the merits. He then appealed to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, but that
appeal was dismissed as moot, as he had pled guilty to the indictment.
See Mandate
of the First Circuit, No. 22-1486, issued July 21, 2022.
Case 1:25-cv-00188-MSM Document 12 Filed 02/24/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
This case is not dismissed on the ground of mootness because Mr. Reardon is
now seeking damages, not relief from the revocation. 	However, the doctrine
enunciated in
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), precludes a civil action if a
successful 	result 	would 	be 	inconsistent 	with 	or 	undermine 	a 	still-outstanding
conviction that has not been “declared invalid or otherwise impugned.”
	Pandey v.
Freedman, 66 F.3d 306 (table), 1995 WL 568490 at *1 (1st Cir. Sept. 26, 1995).
Heck
applies to damages actions that “require the plaintiff to prove the unlawfulness of his
conviction
or confinement.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 486. It has been applied specifically to
bail determinations.
	Giallorenzo v. Beaver Cty., 241 Fed. Appx. 866, 867 (3d Cir.
2007) (bail revocation);
Scheffer v. Centre Cty., C.A. NO. 4:18-CV-02080, 2022 WL
681492, at *7 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 18, 2022),
adopted 2022 WL 676969 (Mar. 7, 2022). Any
finding of liability against the defendants who “participated” in the revocation would
be inconsistent with the integrity of the judgment that entered upon the bail
revocation.
	Cf. Vose v. Neronha, No. 24-cv-443-JJM-PAS, 2025 WL 266717, at *2
(D.R.I. Jan. 22, 2025) (applying
Heck to a probation revocation. Here, Mr. Reardon
challenges the lawfulness of his confinement, but the judgment of revocation has not
been vacated, declared invalid or otherwise impugned.
This case is DISMISSED and the Application to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis is
DENIED as moot.
Case 1:25-cv-00188-MSM Document 12 Filed 02/24/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
IT IS SO ORDERED:
__________________________________
Mary S. McElroy,
District Judge
Date: February 24, 2026
.
Case 1:25-cv-00188-MSM Document 12 Filed 02/24/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>