United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND AS MOOT AND ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE OR AMEND
RICHARD CREATURA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
District Court has referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil
rights action to United States Magistrate Judge J. Richard
Creatura. The Court's authority for the referral is 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and local Magistrate
Judge Rules MJR3 and MJR4. Plaintiff Darrel Patrick Willis,
proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights complaint
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
has filed a motion to amend complaint (Dkt. 14) and a
corrected amended complaint (Dkt. 17). He alleges that he was
unlawfully incarcerated on three separate occasions, that he
was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment during his
incarceration, and that the police searched his home
unlawfully based on a false allegation of a parole violation.
Though plaintiff states the foundation for an Eighth
Amendment claim, he has neglected to identify as defendants
specific persons who caused him harm. His other claims still
imply the invalidity of an underlying conviction and are not
the proper subject of a §1983 action under
Heck. Further, because he has already filed an
amended complaint, as is his right, his motion to amend is
moot. Therefore, the Court denies plaintiff's motion to
amend and orders plaintiff to amend his complaint to remedy
the deficiencies identified herein. The Court also directs
the clerk's office to file separately, plaintiff's
habeas corpus petition, as set forth below.
filed this § 1983 action and an application to proceed
in forma pauperis on May 18, 2017. Dkts. 1, 5. On
July 5, 2017, he paid his filing fee (Dkt. Event at
07/05/2017) and the Court recommended his application to
proceed in forma pauperis be denied as moot (Dkt.
8). The District Court Judge adopted the Court's
recommendation on August 8, 2017. Dkt. 13.
original complaint, plaintiff claimed that he had been
unlawfully arrested on three separate occasions for
violations of community custody after he already completed
his community custody sentence. Dkt. 5. He further stated
that this was a violation of his First Amendment rights.
Id. On August 7, 2017, the Court ordered plaintiff
to show cause or amend his complaint for failing to state a
claim. Dkt. 12. Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his
complaint and include additional days of false imprisonment
on August 8, 2017. Dkt. 14. On August 30, 2017, plaintiff
filed a proposed amended complaint as well as a proposed
petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Dkts. 15, 16. On
September 11, 2017, he filed a corrected version of his
amended complaint as well as a corrected version of his
habeas petition. Dkts. 17, 18. In his corrected complaint, he
reiterated his claims of false arrest and imprisonment and
included additional claims that his Fourth and Eighth
Amendment protections had been violated. Dkt. 17. He also
alleged that his due process and equal protection rights were
infringed. Id. His habeas petition reflects these
allegations. Dkt. 18. The Court notes that the original
complaint is a §1983 complaint, and not a habeas
the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, the Court is
required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking
relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee
of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
Court must “dismiss the complaint, or any portion of
the complaint, if the complaint: (1) is frivolous, malicious,
or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted;
or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief.” Id. at (b); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2); see Barren v. Harrington, 152
F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 1998).
order to state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, a plaintiff must show: (1) he suffered a violation of
rights protected by the Constitution or created by federal
statute, and (2) the violation was proximately caused by a
person acting under color of state law. See Crumpton v.
Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991). The first
step in a § 1983 claim is to identify the specific
constitutional right allegedly infringed. Albright v.
Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994). To satisfy the second
prong, a plaintiff must allege facts showing how individually
named defendants caused, or personally participated in
causing, the harm alleged in the complaint. See Arnold v.
IBM, 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981).
complaint suffers from deficiencies requiring dismissal if
not corrected in an amended complaint.
Motion to Amend Complaint
has filed a motion to amend complaint to include additional
days of false imprisonment. Dkt. 14. However, since filing
this motion, plaintiff has filed an amended complaint (Dkt.
15) and a corrected amended complaint (Dkt. 17). Because the
Court accepts his corrected amended complaint as the
operative complaint, his motion for leave to amend (Dkt. 14)
is denied as moot.
Challenge to Lawfulness of Incarceration - Heck
he has followed the Court's instruction and properly
named defendants and their actions, plaintiff still states
causes of action that, if found in plaintiff's favor,
would imply the invalidity of an underlying ...