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

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

MICHAEL D. MILAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

PIERCE COUNTY et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5842FDB

ORDER ACCEPTING

PLAINTIFF’S ADDITIONAL

FACTS AS A SUPPLEMENT TO

THE AMENDED COMPLAINT

AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF

TO PROVIDE SERVICE FORMS 

This Civil Rights action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to

Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Plaintiff has applied for and received in forma pauperis status. 

(Dkt. # 7). 

This action was first filed in late December of 2005. In January of 2006 plaintiff was granted

in forma pauperis status. (Dkt. # 7). The original complaint is not a model of clarity and it

appeared to the court plaintiff was attacking an ongoing criminal prosecution. Plaintiff complained of

a warrant allegedly issued by the Pierce County Prosecutors Office. (Dkt. # 8). He did not explain

what the warrant was for or how the warrant affected him. The court liberally construes a pro se

pleading but cannot supply facts to a complaint. Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d 469 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Case 3:05-cv-05842-FDB Document 20 Filed 05/31/06 Page 1 of 3
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

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

The court entered an order to show cause. (Dkt. # 11). In response plaintiff filed an

amended complaint. (Dkt. # 13). In the amended complaint plaintiff indicates he was offered some

kind of settlement by Pierce County and again mentions a “warrant”. Plaintiff provided no details.

The court could not determine if he has stated a claim and the complaint should be served, or if he

was challenging an on going criminal prosecution. The court ordered plaintiff to file a second

amended complaint. (Dkt. # 14).

Plaintiff then filed a document he titles “Fact Findings To Original Complaint.” (Dkt. # 19). 

Plaintiff explains that he is serving a 60 month sentence for crimes unrelated to this action. (Dkt. #

19). He alleges he was initially sent to McNeil Island minimum camp restricted area. Plaintiff alleges

he arrived at McNeil Island November 10th, 2004. Plaintiff claims two named individuals from the

Pierce County Prosecutors Office, Colby Richards and Susan Lay, caused a felony detainer to be

filed with the Washington State Department of Corrections for a fourth degree assault, domestic

violence charge.

Plaintiff alleges that as a result of that detainer he lost his minimum status and was moved to

another facility. He alleges that for 11 and 1⁄2 months he has suffered because of the more restrictive

environment. Plaintiff alleges that fourth degree assault is a misdemeanor, and that a felony detainer

should not have been filed.

At first glance the complaint fails to state a claim because it is well established that an inmate

has no right to any particular level of custody or any particular prison. Olim v. Wakinekona, 461

U.S. 238 (1983); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1976); Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (1983).

[However plaintiff has an arguable due process interest in having the correct information in his file.]

Between the amended complaint, (Dkt. # 13) and the additional facts alleged in plaintiff’s

“Fact Finding” document, (Dkt. # 19), the court has the information needed to serve a viable

complaint against Richard Colby and Susan Lay. 

The complaint in this action will consist of these two documents. The clerks office is

directed to send Mr. Milam two United States Marshal Service forms. Plaintiff will need to fill out

the forms, one for Richard Colby and one for Susan Lay, and return the forms to the court. The

Case 3:05-cv-05842-FDB Document 20 Filed 05/31/06 Page 2 of 3
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

27

28

ORDER

Page - 3

court will then make service copies of the amended complain with the additional facts and order the

Marshals service to attempt service by mail.

Plaintiff will have until June 24th, 2006 to return the forms. Failure to return the forms

properly filled out will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to

prosecute

The clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to plaintiff with the two forms, and to note

the June 24th, 2006 due date on the court’s calendar. 

 

DATED this 30th day of May, 2006.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05842-FDB Document 20 Filed 05/31/06 Page 3 of 3