1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

PAGE - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

RICKEY A. BEAVER, )

)

Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. C05-1938-MJP-JPD

)

v. )

)

CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, et al., ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

Plaintiff has submitted a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an application to proceed

in forma pauperis (“IFP application”). (Doc. #1). Plaintiff is currently in custody at Western State

Hospital in Tacoma, Washington. Having considered plaintiff’s complaint and IFP application, and the

balance of the record, the court does hereby find and ORDER as follows:

(1) Plaintiff’s lawsuit faces two immediate obstacles. First, it appears that plaintiff may not

qualify for IFP status as a “prisoner” under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), because he

is not currently detained in a prison or jail. He is detained in a hospital and consequently, it appears

that his detention may be the result of a civil commitment order and not a criminal conviction. Only

individuals who, at the time they seek to file their civil actions, are detained as a result “of being

accused of, convicted of, or sentenced for criminal offenses” are “prisoners” within the definition of

the PLRA. See Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000). Therefore, plaintiff must clarify

the nature of his detention before the court may review his IFP application. 

Second, plaintiff alleges in his complaint that two Federal Way police officers used excessive

force when they arrested him in August 2004. (Complaint at 3). For relief, plaintiff seeks $250,000 in

Case 2:05-cv-01938-JPD Document 5 Filed 01/10/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

PAGE - 2

damages. Before the court may determine whether to direct the Clerk to serve plaintiff’s complaint on

defendants, plaintiff must clarify whether the events that he has described led to his own criminal

conviction. If so, then this lawsuit may not proceed unless plaintiff first succeeds in having the

conviction overturned: “[W]hen a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court

must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his

conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can

demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512

U.S. 477, 487 (1994). Thus, plaintiff must demonstrate that either he has not been convicted as a

result of the 2004 arrest or that the conviction has been invalidated. 

Accordingly, no later than February 8, 2006, plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE in writing why his

lawsuit should not be dismissed on either of the above two grounds.

(2) The Clerk shall forward a copy of this Order to plaintiff and to the Honorable Marsha

J. Pechman.

DATED this 10th day of January, 2006.

s/ James P. Donohue 

JAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-01938-JPD Document 5 Filed 01/10/06 Page 2 of 2