KENNETH M. WORKMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
CHRISTOPHER RICH, Clerk of the Fourth Judicial District; IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Defendants-Respondents, and UNKNOWN AND UNNAMED INDIVIDUAL OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, Defendant.
Opinion No. 42
from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,
State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Gerald F. Schroeder,
District Judge. Hon. George G. Hicks, Magistrate.
of the district court affirming magistrate decision to grant
motion to dismiss; order of the district court affirming
magistrate grant of summary judgment, affirmed.
Kenneth M. Workman, Boise, pro se appellant.
Bennetts, Ada County Prosecuting Attorney; Ray J. Chacko,
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Boise, for respondent,
Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kristina M. Schindele,
Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent, Idaho
Department of Correction.
GRATTON, CHIEF JUDGE
M. Workman appeals from the district court's order
affirming the magistrate's decision to grant Christopher
Rich's (Rich) motion to dismiss and the Idaho Department
of Correction's (IDOC) motion for summary judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
2001, Workman drove his vehicle off Interstate 84 and into
two pickups parked on the side of the road. At the time of
the crash, Workman was under the influence of heroin,
methamphetamine, and THC. The owners of the pickups were
standing between the vehicles at the time of the crash, and
both owners suffered serious injuries. One person was thrown
into the road and suffered major broken bones and a ruptured
spleen. The other person was pinned between the vehicles,
breaking one leg while the other leg was severed from his
body. Workman was convicted of two counts of aggravated
driving under the influence, Idaho Code § 18-8006, and
being a persistent violator, I.C. § 19-2514, and was
sentenced to two determinate life sentences. On April 28,
2003, the district court ordered Workman to pay $32, 391.44
in restitution, with interest accruing annually. The district
court's order also provided that "this Order shall
constitute a Civil Judgment against the defendant, KENNETH M.
IDOC began deducting funds from Workman's inmate account
on September 30, 2003. These funds were sent to Rich, the
clerk of the district court in which Workman was convicted,
for distribution to the victims. On December 30, 2015,
Workman filed a pro se complaint,  in which he asserted that
Rich and the IDOC improperly garnished money from his inmate
account in order to pay the court-ordered restitution. Rich
filed a motion to dismiss and the IDOC filed a motion for
summary judgment. The magistrate granted Rich's and the
IDOC's motions. Workman appealed to the district court,
and the district court affirmed the magistrate's
decision. Workman timely appeals.
argues that the restitution order entered against him has
"expired, [is] unenforceable, uncollectable, and no
longer still owing" because it is a civil judgment that
was not renewed within five years of its entry. Workman
further argues that I.C. §§ 19-4708 and 19-5305(2)
do not apply to his restitution order because the statutes
were amended subsequent to his judgment being entered. For an
appeal from the district court, sitting in its appellate
capacity over a case from the magistrate division, this
Court's standard of review is the same as expressed by
the Idaho Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reviews the
magistrate record to determine whether there is substantial
and competent evidence to support the magistrate's
findings of fact and whether the magistrate's conclusions
of law follow from those findings. State v. Korn,
148 Idaho 413, 415, 224 P.3d 480, 482 (2009). If those
findings are so supported and the conclusions follow
therefrom, and if the district court affirmed the
magistrate's decision, we affirm the district court's
decision as a matter of procedure. Id. Thus, the
appellate courts do not review the decision of the
magistrate. State v. Trusdall, 155 Idaho 965, 968,
318 P.3d 955, 958 (Ct. App. 2014). Rather, we are
procedurally bound to affirm or reverse the decision of the
district court. Id.
appellate court, we will affirm a trial court's grant of
an Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion where the
record demonstrates that there are no genuine issues of
material fact and the case can be decided as a matter of law.
Coghlan v. Beta Theta Pi Fraternity, 133 Idaho 388,
398, 987 P.2d 300, 310 (1999). When reviewing an order of the
district court dismissing a case pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6),
the nonmoving party is entitled to have all inferences from
the record and pleadings viewed in its favor, and only then
may the question be asked whether a claim for relief has been
stated. Coghlan, 133 Idaho at 398, 987 P.2d at 310.
The issue is not whether the ...