Quinlan v. King County

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE

8 TERRANCE JOE QUINLAN,

9 Plaintiff, Case No. C22-902-RAJ-MLP

10 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 11 KING COUNTY,

12 Defendant.

14 Plaintiff Terrance Quinlan is currently confined at the King County Regional Justice 15 Center in Kent, Washington. He has submitted to the Court for filing a civil rights complaint 16 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See dkt. # 4-1.) Plaintiff alleges in the single count of his complaint 17 that King County violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by charging and 18 convicting him of a crime without due process of law and by depriving him of equal protection 19 of the law. (Id. at 4-5.) Plaintiff further asserts that King County abused its police powers, though 20 he offers no explanation of why he believes this to be the case. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff identifies King 21 County as the lone Defendant in his complaint and he seeks $500,000 in damages. (Id. at 1, 3, 9.) 22 23

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 1 1 It appears from the face of Plaintiff’s complaint that he may be using this civil rights 2 action to challenge the conviction underlying his current confinement. Where a prisoner 3 challenges the fact or duration of his confinement, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas 4 corpus, to which the exhaustion requirement applies. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489-90

5 (1973). In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the United States Supreme Court held that a 6 § 1983 claim that calls into question the lawfulness of a plaintiff’s conviction or confinement 7 does not accrue “unless and until the conviction or sentence is reversed, expunged, invalidated, 8 or impugned by the grant of a writ of habeas corpus.” Id. at 489. Because it appears that a ruling 9 in Plaintiff’s favor on his asserted claims would undermine the validity of his current 10 confinement, and because nothing in the record suggests that Plaintiff’s underlying conviction 11 has been invalidated in any fashion, Plaintiff’s claims are not cognizable in this action. 12 Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 13 (1) Plaintiff shall show cause not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this

14 Order why this action should not be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for 15 failure to state any claim upon which relief may be granted. Failure to timely respond to this 16 Order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 17 (2) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff and to the Honorable 18 Richard A. Jones. The Clerk is further directed to note this matter for the Court’s consideration 19 of Plaintiff’s response to the Order to Show Cause on August 19, 2022. 20 DATED this 19th day of July, 2022. 21 A 22

MICHELLE L. PETERSON 23 United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 2