Parenteau, Jr v. Cooper

Filing 4

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Hon. Brian A Tsuchida. Show Cause Response due by 9/29/2017. (cc: plaintiff) (ST)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

RICHARD L. PARENTEAU, JR.,

9

Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.
JAMES COOPER,
Defendant.

12
13

CASE NO. C17-1318 JLR-BAT

Richard Parenteau, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a proposed civil rights

14

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. 1. The complaint alleges Detective James Cooper

15

“illegally seized” Mr. Parenteau in his residence on July 19, 2014. Id. The Court declines to

16

serve the complaint because it is untimely and fails to state a viable claim for relief under 42

17

U.S.C. § 1983. However, because Mr. Parenteau proceeds pro se, the Court grants him leave to

18

explain why the complaint should not be dismissed.

19

DISCUSSION

20

Actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 require a plaintiff to show that (1) a state actor

21

(2) violated his constitutional rights. Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir.

22

1986). However, the facts alleged in Mr. Parenteau’s complaint fail to state a viable claim for

23

relief under § 1983.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 1

1

First, Mr. Parenteau’s claim is barred by the statute of limitations. Any claims arising for

2

an alleged false arrest are subject to a three year statute of limitations. Joshua v. Newell, 871

3

F.2d 884, 886 (9th Cir.1989) (citing RCW 4.16.080(2)). Under federal law, a claim accrues

4

“when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action.”

5

Two Rivers v. Lewis, 174 F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir. 1999). Here, Mr. Parenteau alleges that the

6

incident occurred on July 19, 2014, which is more than three years ago from the date of his

7

complaint, August 26, 2017. Mr. Parenteau clearly knew about the alleged illegal seizure at the

8

time it occurred because it involved his own person. Mr. Parenteau is accordingly ordered to

9

show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed because it is untimely and barred by the

10
11

statute of limitations.
Second, the Court direct Mr. Parenteau to show why his claims are not barred by Heck v.

12

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). When a state prisoner brings a § 1983 action for

13

damages, the Court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily

14

imply the invalidity of his conviction, sentence, or confinement. Id. at 487-90. “[I]f it would, the

15

complaint must be dismissed,” unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or

16

confinement has already been invalidated, expunged, or otherwise impugned. Id. at 487; see also

17

Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024 (9th Cir.1997). Here Mr. Parenteau was apparently

18

arrested by Detective Cooper and placed in the King County Jail where he remains detained. The

19

fact that he remains in custody indicates that he has not successfully challenged the criminal

20

matter that brought him to the jail, and that his claims are therefore barred under Heck.

21

Because the complaint appears to be barred by the statute of limitations, and also appears

22

to be barred by Heck v. Humphry, the Court declines to serve the complaint. The Court further

23

directs Mr. Parenteau to, no later than September 29, 2017, explain why his complaint should

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 2

1

not be dismissed. The Court will recommend the case be dismissed if no explanation is

2

submitted, or if the explanation fails to adequately address the defects contained in the

3

complaint.

4
5
6

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this order to Mr. Parenteau, and the Honorable
James L. Robart.
DATED this 1st day of September, 2017.

7

A

8

BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 3