Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wood v. Reinke

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

January 14, 2014

LANCE CONWAY WOOD, Plaintiff,
v.
BRENT REINKE, JOHANNA SMITH, SHELL WAMBLE-FISHER, JAY CHRISTENSEN, JEFF KIRKMAN, JILL WHITTINGTON, DAVID SIDWELL, JACOB SACKETT, and TEN JOHN and TEN JANE DOES, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

EDWARD J. LODGE, District Judge.

Plaintiff Lance Conway Wood, a prisoner in the custody of the Idaho Department of Correction, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action. Now pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted (Dkt. 35). Plaintiff has not responded to the Motion.

Having carefully reviewed the record, the Court finds that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Therefore, the Court will decide this matter on the written motions, briefs and record without oral argument. D. Idaho L. Civ. R. 7.1(d). Accordingly, the Court enters the following Order granting Defendants' Motion and dismissing this case without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

On June 2, 2010, Plaintiff filed his original civil rights case with several other plaintiffs in Case No. 1:10-cv-00277-REB, but the Court severed Plaintiff's case into this separate case, No. 1:11-cv-00355-EJL. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint alleges multiple claims of constitutional violations against various IDOC employees. (Dkt. 3.)

The Court initially reviewed the Second Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915A, and on January 4, 2012, entered an Order permitting Plaintiff to proceed with the following claims:

(1) "Against Defendant Smith under the First and Eighth Amendments for failing to protect Plaintiff from, or acquiescing in, ongoing retaliation and calculated harassment by the other Defendants";
(2) "Against Defendant Wamble-Fisher for First Amendment retaliation claims and Eighth Amendment calculated harassment claims related to Defendant Wamble-Fisher firing Plaintiff from his chapel job, not reinstating Plaintiff as a Life Transitions Program team member, and having Plaintiff's cell searched by Defendant Sackett and then having Plaintiff removed from his single cell";
(3) "Against Defendant Christensen under the First and Eighth Amendments for Plaintiff losing his word processor and other materials, losing his legal books and papers, losing his paid chapel job, losing his position as head facilitator of the Life Transitions Program, and losing his single cell";
(4) "Against Defendant Sidwell under the First and Eighth Amendments for placing negative reports in Plaintiff's institutional file, moving Plaintiff out of his single cell and unit, and having Defendant Sackett search Plaintiff's cell"; and
(5) "Against Defendant Sackett under the First and Eighth Amendments for repeatedly searching Plaintiff's cell, stealing Plaintiff's legal evidence and material, intimidating Plaintiff's witnesses and entering false reports into Plaintiff's institutional file."

(Dkt. 8 at 9-10).

On March 21, 2013, the Court granted Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, dismissing all of Plaintiff's claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies except his claims, under the First and Eighth Amendments, that Plaintiff was unlawfully terminated from the Life Transitions Program (LTP). (Dkt. 34 at 14.) According to Plaintiff, the LTP

was under the direction and care of the chapel and considered a chapel program. It consisted of twenty (20) prisoner volunteers that were required to be interviewed by a three (3) pannel [sic] committee to be hired, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.