United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OR AMEND
W. CHRISTEL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Bryce Anthony Jackson, proceeding pro se, filed a
Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See
Dkt. 1-1. Having reviewed and screened
Plaintiff's Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the
Court declines to serve the Complaint but provides Plaintiff
leave to file an amended pleading by September 3rd, 2019, to
cure the deficiencies identified herein.
Complaint, Plaintiff, an inmate at the Multnomah County
Inverness Jail, alleges that his constitutional rights were
violated when he was incarcerated in the State of Washington.
Dkt. 1, Dkt. 7. Plaintiff alleges that his probation officer
falsified a confinement order that resulted in eight months
of wrongful imprisonment. Dkt. 1. Plaintiff seeks a
declaration that his constitutional rights were violated, as
well as compensatory and punitive damages. Id.
“action lying at the core of habeas corpus is one that
goes directly to the constitutionality of the prisoner's
physical confinement itself and seeks either immediate
release from that confinement or the shortening of its
duration. With regard to such actions, habeas corpus is now
considered the prisoner's exclusive remedy.”
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 503 (1973)
(internal quotation omitted). “A civil rights action,
in contrast, is the proper method of challenging conditions
of confinement.” Badea v. Cox, 931 F.3d 573,
574 (9th Cir. 1991).
Plaintiff filed a civil rights action wherein he challenges
his physical confinement, appearing to challenge the legality
of his probation officer's actions with respect to a
confinement order that resulted in eight months of additional
incarceration. Plaintiff's requested relief, which
challenges the fact of his custody, is properly raised in a
§ 2254 petition, not a § 1983 complaint. Therefore,
Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable § 1983 claim.
Plaintiff intends to pursue this § 1983 civil rights
action, he must file an amended complaint on the form
provided by the Court, including only claims challenging the
conditions of his confinement. Plaintiff may file a separate
§ 2254 habeas petition challenging the fact or duration
of his custody on the form provided by the Court.
amended § 1983 complaint must contain a short, plain
statement telling the Court: (1) the constitutional right
Plaintiff believes was violated; (2) the name of the person
who violated the right; (3) exactly what the individual did
or failed to do; (4) how the action or inaction of the
individual is connected to the violation of Plaintiff's
constitutional rights; and (5) what specific injury Plaintiff
suffered because of the individual's conduct. See
Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976).
shall present the amended complaint on the form provided by
the Court. The amended complaint must be legibly rewritten or
retyped in its entirety, it should be an original and not a
copy, it should contain the same case number, and it may not
incorporate any part of the original complaint by reference.
The amended complaint will act as a complete substitute for
the original Complaint, and not as a supplement. The Court
will screen the amended complaint to determine whether it
contains factual allegations linking each defendant to the
alleged violations of Plaintiff's rights. The Court will
not authorize service of the amended complaint on any
defendant who is not specifically linked to a violation of
Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or fails to
adequately address the issues raised herein on or before
September 3rd, 2019, the undersigned will recommend dismissal
of this action.
Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff the appropriate forms for
filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint and for
service and the forms for filing a petition for habeas corpus
relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Clerk is
further directed to send copies of this Order and Pro Se
Instruction Sheet to Plaintiff.
 Plaintiff also filed a Motion for
Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Dkt. 7. However,
the Court finds it improbable Plaintiff will be able to cure
the deficiencies of his Complaint and therefore will not rule
on the request to proceed in forma pauperis until
Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint.
 To the extent Plaintiff is seeking
damages for an alleged constitutional violation, the Court
may be required to stay his case until his pending criminal
charges are resolved. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S.
384, 393-94 (2007) (If a plaintiff files a claim related to
rulings that will likely be made in a pending or anticipated
criminal trial, “it is within the power of the district
court, and in accord with common practice, to stay ...