Isaiah QN Butler v. Po Marshall McCamish et al.
This text of Isaiah QN Butler v. Po Marshall McCamish et al. (Isaiah QN Butler v. Po Marshall McCamish et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
ISAIAH QN BUTLER, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) V. ) 1:25-CV-00239-LEW ) PO MARSHALL McCAMISH et al., ) ) Defendants )
ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION AND IMPOSING COK WARNING
On June 27, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge John C. Nivison filed with the court, with a copy to the Plaintiff, his Recommended Decision (ECF No. 8) on Plaintiff’s Complaint concerning the circumstances of Plaintiff’s arrest in January 2025, and recommended that the case be dismissed. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to file an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9), which the court granted (ECF No. 10). Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on July 18, 2025 (ECF No. 14). Magistrate Judge Nivison filed his Supplemental Report and Recommended Decision on September 29, 2025 (ECF No. 21) and again recommends that the Court dismiss this matter. On October 6, 2025, the Plaintiff filed his Objection (ECF No. 22). I have reviewed and considered the original Recommended Decision, the Supplemental Recommended Decision, and the Objection, together with the entire record; I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Recommended Decisions; and I concur with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in the Recommended Decisions and determine that no further proceeding is necessary. In addition to the well-established abstention doctrine identified in the Supplemental Report and Recommended Decision, the Magistrate Judge correctly
observed in the original Recommended Decision that Plaintiff’s allegations concerning the non-observation of state statutes, policies, and procedures do not state a claim for relief that falls within this Court’s federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed six cases since April 30, 2025. See Butler v. Bryant, et al., No. 1:25-cv-213-LEW; Butler v. Simmons, et al., No. 1:25-cv-233-LEW; Butler v. McCamish, et al., No. 1:25-cv-239-LEW; Butler v. Gagnon, et al., No. 1:25-cv-
245-LEW; Butler v. Kennebec County, et al., No. 1:25-cv-274-LEW; Butler v. Goodchild, et al., No. 1:25-cv-346-JAW. Per Cok v. Family Court of Rhode Island, 985 F.2d 32 (1st Cir. 1993), the Court warns Mr. Butler that if he again files pleadings that are determined to be groundless and/or frivolous, the Court will impose filing restrictions. The Recommended Decision (ECF No. 8) and the Supplemental Recommended
Decision (ECF No. 21) of the Magistrate Judge are hereby ADOPTED. The case is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.
Dated this 21st day of October, 2025.
/s/ Lance E. Walker CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Isaiah QN Butler v. Po Marshall McCamish et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/isaiah-qn-butler-v-po-marshall-mccamish-et-al-med-2025.