United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
B. LYNN WINMILL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
The Court has before it Tia Ritter’s Motion for Fee Waiver Pursuant to I.C. § 31-3220 (Dkt. 4). For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant the motion.
Ms. Ritter intends to file suit against certain law enforcement officials. She is required by Idaho Code § 6–610(2) to post a bond to cover costs when she initiates suit against a law enforcement officer. A court may, however, waive costs, fees and security for indigents. See I.C. § 31–3220. If a party files an affidavit stating that she is indigent and unable to pay the costs, fees, and security associated with her case, the court may waive that requirement if it finds, after informal inquiry, that the party is indigent. See I.C. § 31–3220(2). This statute applies to bonds required under I.C. § 6–610. Taysom v. Bannock County, 2012 WL 397734 (D. Idaho. Feb. 7, 2012).
Ms. Ritter was a ward of the State of Idaho. Her court appointed conservator, Angela Jenson, originally filed an affidavit explaining that Ms. Ritter was unable to pay the security required by Idaho Code § 6-610. Jenson Aff, Dkt. 1-1. The affidavit confirmed that Ms. Ritter has no assets and was therefore indigent. The Court therefore waived the security bond for the conservator. Ms. Ritter is now an adult, and she has filed another affidavit on her own behalf explaining that she is unable to pay the security required by Idaho Code § 6-610. Ritter Aff., Dkt. 4-1. The affidavit confirms that Ms. Ritter has no assets, no income, and is therefore indigent. Essentially, other than Ms. Ritter becoming an adult, nothing has changed from the time the Court originally waived the security bond for the conservator. Accordingly, the Court will now waive the security bond - this time as it applies to Ms. Ritter instead of her conservator.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Ms Ritter’s Motion for Fee Waiver Pursuant to I.C. § ...