CAREY v. MAINE STATE POLICE et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
SETH CAREY,
Plaintiff,
v.
MAINE STATE POLICE et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:25-cv-00385-SDN
ORDER
In this matter, Plaintiff Seth Carey brings numerous claims arising from the Fourth
Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as state tort and statutory law. Mr. Carey has
sued various entities for the alleged violation of his constitutional rights, including the
Maine State Police, the Rumford Police Department, the District Attorney of Hancock and
Washington Counties, and several individual officers in their professional capacities with
multiple state and city agencies. Mr. Carey’s claims arise generally from a state court’s
adverse decision in a protection from abuse (“PFA”) proceeding and the subsequent loss
of his law license. On November 7, 2025, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing
Mr. Carey’s complaint on multiple procedural and jurisdictional grounds, as well as for
the overall failure to state a plausible claim for relief. ECF No. 5. Mr. Carey subsequently
objected to the Recommended Decision. ECF No. 6. I have reviewed and conducted a de
novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision. For the following reasons,
I AFFIRM the Recommended Decision and DISMISS the complaint.
DISCUSSION
In his complaint, Mr. Carey alleges he was “completely falsely accused, defamed
and maliciously prosecuted by Defendants” in connection with a state court PFA
Case 2:25-cv-00385-SDN Document 7 Filed 03/13/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
proceeding and accompanying investigation. See ECF No. 1 at 1, 5–7. With respect to the
PFA proceeding, Mr. Carey discusses numerous allegedly false statements made by the
victim in the PFA case, which he asserts led to the violation of his constitutional rights,
the loss of his professional career as an attorney, and diminished reputation. See id. at 5–
6. In her Recommended Decision, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing Mr.
Carey’s complaint on numerous grounds.
As a primary matter, the state court’s PFA decision was litigated and upheld on
appeal. ECF No. 1 at ¶ 72. Accordingly, as the Magistrate Judge held, the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine bars Mr. Carey’s challenge to the PFA order. ECF No. 6 at 2. Regardless of the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine, however, Mr. Carey has failed to state a plausible claim against
any Defendant based on numerous procedural and jurisdictional deficiencies.
First, Mr. Carey’s claim against the Maine State Police (“MSP”) fails because the
MSP is a Maine State agency and thus immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.
Id. at 2–3; see Gilbert v. Me. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 778 F. Supp. 3d 239, 261 (D.
Me. 2025) (finding that “absent waiver” of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity,
“neither a State nor its agencies acting under its control may be subject to suit in federal
court” (quotation modified)). Second, the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity bars Mr.
Carey’s claim against Defendant Robert Granger in his professional capacity as a District
Attorney. See ECF No. 6 at 3. Third, Mr. Carey has failed to state a claim against the
Rumford 	Police 	Department, 	which 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge 	appropriately 	liberally
construed as a complaint against the City of Rumford, because he has failed to allege
sufficient facts to establish municipal liability under Section 1983. Id. at 3–4; see Monell
v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978) (holding municipalities
can not be liable under Section 1983 “unless action pursuant to official municipal policy
Case 2:25-cv-00385-SDN Document 7 Filed 03/13/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
of some nature caused a constitutional tort”). Fourth, regarding claims against the
remaining named Defendants, Mr. Carey has critically failed to allege specific conduct by
individual defendants, other than conclusory statements, that would violate his federal or
constitutional rights. ECF No. 6 at 4–5. Fifth, regarding Mr. Carey’s request for injunctive
relief against state proceedings and the enforcement of certain criminal laws, the
Magistrate found that, under the facts alleged by Mr. Carey, “there is no justification for
invading the State’s latitude to manage its affairs” and no legal basis for injunctive relief.
See id. at 5. Finally, for any remaining claims, Mr. Carey has failed to satisfy the
Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard by failing to allege sufficient facts to state a plausible
claim against any Defendant. Id. at 6 (“Although Carey alleges many facts, he does not
connect them to the named defendants and instead seeks to relitigate a PFA proceeding
that is unreviewable in this Court under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.”).
Upon my de novo review of the record, I affirm the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion
that Mr. Carey has failed to allege adequate facts to support a claim for relief for any
counts alleged in his complaint. Although Mr. Carey has filed an objection to the
Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision, he does not identify any specific errors in the
Magistrate’s legal reasoning or conclusions, aside from general assertions that the
Magistrate “chose to ‘cherry-pick’” a handful of counts to “fit her narrative” and
“mischaracterize[d] the genesis of the lawsuit and legal claims against the Defendants.”
ECF No. 6 at 1, 2. Mr. Carey’s objection is further devoid of any legal authority to support
any of his arguments or claims and instead only restates conclusory and speculative
allegations against Defendants. After de novo review, I find the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommended Decision is well-reasoned and supported by the entire record before the
Case 2:25-cv-00385-SDN Document 7 Filed 03/13/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Court. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in her opinion, I adopt and affirm the
Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision in its entirety.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, and for those already explained in the Magistrate
Judge’s Recommended Decision, Mr. Carey’s objection, ECF No. 6, is OVERRULED.
The Recommended Decision, ECF No. 5, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED in its entirety.
Accordingly, Mr. Carey’s complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED.
S O ORDERED .
Dated this 13th day of March, 2026.
/s/ Stacey D. Neumann
UNITED S TATES DISTRICT J UDGE
Case 2:25-cv-00385-SDN Document 7 Filed 03/13/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>