Justin R. Boucher v. Kennebec County Jail et al.

Boucher · United States District Court for the District of Maine · March 25, 2026 · No. 1:25-cv-184-LEW

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Maine partially adopts and partially rejects a magistrate judge’s recommended decision concerning Justin R. Boucher’s civil rights complaint. The court allows claims to proceed against Officer Puzzuto for excessive force and against “Dr. Sam” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, while dismissing other claims without prejudice and denying joinder of proposed claims involving other correctional institutions. The court also denies appointment of counsel and directs service on the remaining defendants.

Holdings

  1. The original complaint failed to state a claim against the other defendants, but the excessive-force claim against Officer Puzzuto could proceed.
  2. Construing Plaintiff's objection as a supplemental pleading, the court held that the allegations against Dr. Sam contained the minimum allegations needed to state a § 1983 claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need at the screening stage.
  3. The court denied Plaintiff's request to add defendants and claims concerning the Maine Correctional Center and Maine State Prison because there was no evident basis for joining those matters with the claims against Officer Puzzuto and Dr. Sam.
  4. The request for appointment of counsel was denied without prejudice to renewal at a later stage.
  5. The case would proceed against Dr. Sam exclusively under § 1983 and not under Maine malpractice law.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the original complaint stated claims other than the excessive-force claim against Officer Puzzuto.
  2. Whether Plaintiff's supplemental allegations against Dr. Sam sufficiently alleged deliberate indifference to a serious medical need under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 at the screening stage.
  3. Whether proposed claims involving personnel and events at other correctional institutions could be added in this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20.
  4. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to appointment of counsel at that stage of the proceedings.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (6)

  • Stewart v. Mason, No. 1:21-cv-00321, 2022 WL 1997213, at *2 (D. Me. June 6, 2022)(applied)
  • D.S. v. Spurwink Servs., Inc., 2013 ME 31, ¶ 18, 65 A.3d 1196, 1200(applied)
  • Demmons v. Tritch, 484 F. Supp. 2d 177, 179 (D. Me. 2007)(applied)
  • Hill v. Kwan, 2009 ME 4, ¶¶ 5–6, 962 A.2d 963, 965–66(applied)
  • Carleton v. Piscataquis Cnty. Jail, No. 1:23-cv-00253-JAW, 2023 WL 5271985, at *5 (D. Me. Aug. 16, 2023)(applied)
  • Carleton v. Piscataquis Cnty. Jail, 2023 WL 5834803 (D. Me. Sept. 8, 2023)(applied)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…