BUTLER v. SIMMONS

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE ISAIAH BUTLER, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) 1:25-cv-00233-LEW ) HANNAH SIMMONS, et al., ) ) Defendants ) SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER REVIEW OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND AMENDED COMPLAINT After a review of Plaintiff’s complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A, I recommended that the Court dismiss the matter. (Recommended Decision, ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint. (Amended Complaint, ECF No. 12.) Because Plaintiff’s amended complaint does not allege an actionable claim, I reiterate my recommendation that the Court dismiss the matter. In his amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following: After a cell search on March 26th I was continuously subjected to cruel and unusual punishments, unclean living conditions, denial of recreation of hour at reasonable times to call lawyers, subject to consistent harassments, intimidation by administrators, denied fair hearing to clear prisoner misconduct, offered no notification of moot disciplinary action.

(Amended Complaint at 3.) Plaintiff’s conclusory assertions are insufficient to state an actionable claim. See Young v. Wells Fargo Bank, 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. Because Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to support the conclusory allegations in the complaint, dismissal is warranted. For the reasons stated in the original Recommended Decision and in this Supplemental Recommended Decision, I recommend the Court dismiss the matter.

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 29th day of September, 2025.