United States District Court, E.D. Washington
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AND DENYING MOTIONS
Stanley A. Bastian United States District Judge
a prisoner at the Airway Heights Corrections Center, brings
this pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. By separate Order the Court granted
Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Plaintiff seeks his release from incarceration, claiming
that, approximately eight years ago, police officers
compelled him through coercion to write a statement; a
prosecutor engaged in misconduct by referencing that
statement in closing arguments; and his public defender
provided ineffective assistance by failing to assert his
incompetency to stand trial.
LITIGATION REFORM ACT
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 a complaint or portion thereof if the
prisoner has raised claims that are legally frivolous or
malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who
is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§
1915A(b)(1), (2), 1915(e)(2); see Barren v.
Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194-95 (9th Cir. 1998).
is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either
in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989), superseded by statute on other grounds as
stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1138-39
(9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Franklin v. Murphy, 745
F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The Court may, therefore,
dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual
contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S.
at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional
claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and
factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639,
640 (9th Cir. 1989), superseded by statute on other grounds
as stated in Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31;
Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.
facts alleged in a complaint are to be taken as true and must
“plausibly give rise to an entitlement to
relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679
(2009). Mere legal conclusions “are not entitled to the
assumption of truth.” Id. The complaint must
contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action.” Bell Atl Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). It must plead
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. On the
basis of these standards, Plaintiff's present allegations
fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
applicable statute of limitations for Section 1983 claims
under Washington law is three years. See RK Ventures,
Inc. v. City of Seattle, 307 F.3d 1045, 1058 (9th Cir.
2002); Millay v. Cam, 135 Wash.2d 193, 206 (1998)
(requiring “bad faith, deception, or false assurances
by the defendant and the exercise of diligence by the
plaintiff, ” for equitable tolling to apply). Plaintiff
has presented no basis for equitable tolling. Therefore, his
allegations against named Defendants which occurred more than
three years prior to May 30, 2018, the date he submitted his
complaint to this Court, ECF No. 1, are time-barred.
states specifically that he is not challenging the conditions
of his confinement. ECF No. 1 at 11. Rather, he asks this
Court to vacate an allegedly wrongful conviction.
state prisoner challenges the fact or duration of his
confinement, or seeks a determination that he is entitled to
release or a shortening of his period of confinement, his
only federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus, with its
requirement of exhaustion of state remedies. See Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481 (1994); Preiser v.
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487-90 (1973). A Section 1983
claim is not the appropriate vehicle for a prisoner to
challenge his underlying state conviction and sentence by
seeking injunctive relief. Preiser, 411 U.S. at 489
(“[A] state prisoner challenging his underlying
conviction and sentence on federal constitutional grounds in
a federal court is limited to habeas corpus . . . he cannot
bring a § 1983 action, even though the literal terms of
§ 1983 might seem to cover such a challenge”).
Therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief he in this
§ 1983 action.
the named Defendants is located in the Eastern District of
Washington and none of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs
claims occurred in this district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
Therefore, venue is not proper in the Eastern District of
may be raised by the Court sua sponte. Costlow v.
Weeks,790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). When venue
is improper, a district court has the discretion to either
dismiss the case or transfer it ...