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.

Jones v. Idaho Legislative Representatives

United States District Court, D. Idaho

September 19, 2017

SCOTT JONES, ROBERT COY, RICHARD J. DRENNON, JAMES COY, Plaintiffs,
v.
IDAHO LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

          HONORABLE RONALD E. BUSH CHIEF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Now pending before the Court are following three dispositive motions:

• The State Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 6);
• The Ada County Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 7); and
• The Meridian Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 30).

         Additionally, there are several other, somewhat related, motions also pending, including:

• The Meridian Defendants' Motion to Stay (Docket No. 25);
• The Meridian Defendants' Motion for Leave to File its above-referenced Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 30);
• Plaintiffs' various Motions for Extension of Time to respond to the Meridian Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Docket Nos. 34-37);
• Plaintiffs' Motion for Permanent Injunction (Docket No. 40);
• The State Defendants' Motion to Seal (Docket No. 50); and
• Plaintiffs' Motion for Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Permanent Injunction (Docket No. 52).

         Having carefully considered the record and otherwise being fully advised, the Court enters the following Memorandum Decision and Order:

         BACKGROUND

         On July 22, 2016, four Plaintiffs (Scott Jones, Robert Coy, Richard Drennon, and James Coy) filed a 68-page Complaint (excluding 134 pages of exhibits) against roughly 60 named Defendants. Plaintiffs' Complaint is an amalgamation of factually and legally-unrelated claims (approximately 300 allegations) of each Plaintiff against the various state, county, and local governmental entity Defendants (and their officials). The Plaintiffs' scattershot allegations against certain, or all of the Defendants (see Compl. at ¶¶ 42-299) are then followed by four “claims for relief, ” described, in relevant part, as:

         FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF[1]:

• “All plaintiffs claim that the defendants engaged in collusion if not an actual conspiracy to deprive plaintiffs of their constitutionally protected right to seek redress of grievances and access to court.” Compl. at ¶ 301 (emphasis in original).
• “All Plaintiffs claim that the defendants engage in a collusion if not an actual conspiracy to violate Plaintiffs' protected constitutional rights as defined under both Idaho and the United States Constitutional Amendments, sections 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 14.” Id. at ¶ 302.
• “All Plaintiffs have suffered both physically and mentally at the hands of the defendants and the conduct there to.” Id. at ¶ 303.
• “All Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction against the defendants to cease and desist harassing and threatening Plaintiffs by continually coming to Plaintiffs residence for the express purpose to chill the Plaintiffs' rights to gather and research the law as well as assist each other in preparing documents to be filed administratively or in the Courts.” Id. at ¶ 304
• “All Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and punitive damages in excess of $100, 000 per defendant named including unknown defendant's name or discovered.” Id. at ¶ 305.

         SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF:

• “Plaintiff Drennon claims that the defendants Board of Correction, part of corrections, commission for pardons, and paroles, and the division for probation and parole officials and defendants engaged in a collusion and/or conspiracy to cause plaintiff Drennon injury to his income and his rights to assist others in seeking their judicial remedies.” Id. at ¶ 307.
• “Plaintiff Drennon claims that because of the defendants' interference with his abilities to gain donations for his services, plaintiff Drennon has lost approximately $250, 000 of income.” Id. at ¶ 308 • “Plaintiff Drennon has suffered severe emotional and psychological injury at the hands of the defendants and seeks punitive damages in excess of $1 million from each defendant found guilty of causing plaintiff Drennon injury.” Id. at ¶ 309.
• “Plaintiff Drennon's physicians will testify to the damage caused by the above department of corrections probation and parole as well as Ada County Jail depriving Plaintiff Drennon of his adequate medical are resulting in permanent damage to Plaintiff Drennon's health.” Id. at ¶ 310.

         THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF:

• “Plaintiff Jones, plaintiff Robert coy, and Plaintiff James Coy claim that the sentence deprive them of their adequate access to administrative remedies and ENGAGED a collusion to punish these plaintiffs for exercising their constitutional right of redress of grievance, as defined by the first, fifth, sixth, seventh, and 14th amendments to the Constitution.” Id. at ¶ 312 (emphasis in original).
• “Plaintiff Jones, plaintiff Robert coy, and Plaintiff James Coy claim that because of the defendants interference with their administrative processes, that the plaintiffs had been punished by Corporation who refuses to comply with the uniform commercial codes thus depriving plaintiffs of all their due process rights under the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and 14thamendments of the Constitution as well as violation of Idaho's Constitution amendments.” Id. at ¶ 313.
• “Plaintiff Jones, plaintiff Robert coy, and Plaintiff James Coy claim that the defendants have deprived the plaintiffs of their ability to engage in lawful income and trade, which resulted in the defendants loss of income in excess of $500, 000, and these Plaintiffs seek damages in the form of $1 million per defendant that is found guilty of plaintiffs' claims.” Id. at ¶ 314.
• “Plaintiff Jones, plaintiff Robert coy, and plaintiff James Coy claim that their rights to seek administrative relief and judicial relief had been chilled and have caused severe psychological emotional and physical damages as well as exasperated the current medical problems that Robert Coy deals with on a daily basis.” Id. at ¶ 315.

         FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF:

• “All plaintiff claims that the defendants will engage in a retaliatory manner by either falsely creating violations of some form of law or statute, with the intent to stop plaintiffs from pursuing this litigation.” Id. at ¶ 317.
• “All plaintiffs claim that the defendants have stopped, and chilled, plaintiff's right to exercise freedom of association, freedom or redress of grievance, freedom of unlawful arrest and search, all due process protections and access to court as well as access to administrative remedies.” Id. at ¶ 318.
• “Plaintiff claims that the court should issue a preliminary injunction ordering all defendants to cease any further harassment without legitimate foundation, probable cause and in compliance with due process.” Id. at ¶ 319.

         Plaintiffs further request that the Court “issue a preliminary injunction against all the defendants named in this lawsuit . . . .” Id. at p. 66, ¶ b; see also Id. at ¶¶ 320-22.

         For their part, Defendants have attempted to work through Plaintiffs' Complaint, to assemble their respective Motions to Dismiss.

         DISCUSSION

         A. Legal Standard

         Under FRCP 12(b)(6), a party may bring a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. As a general matter, the Federal Rules require only that a plaintiff provide “‘a short and plain statement of the claim' that will give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). When evaluating an FRCP 12(b)(6) motion, a court must accept all material allegations in the complaint - as well as any reasonable inferences to be drawn from them - as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Doe v. United States, 419 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2005); ARC Ecology v. U.S. Dep't of Air Force, 411 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2005); Moyo v. Gomez, 32 F.3d 1382, 1384 (9th Cir. 1994).

         To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement, ' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with' a defendant's liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.'” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The Ninth Circuit has clarified that (1) a complaint must “contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself effectively, ” and (2) “the factual allegations that are taken as true must plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief, such that it is not unfair to require the opposing party to be subjected to the expense of discovery and continued litigation.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011).

         Pursuant to Idaho's Local Civil Rules, a party's failure to oppose a motion may be deemed consent to the granting of the motion; indeed, Idaho Local Civil Rule 7.1(e)(1) states in relevant part:

Except as provided in subpart 2 below [(addressing summary judgment motions brought under FRCP 56)], if an adverse party fails to timely file any response documents required to be filed under this rule, such failure may be deemed to constitute a consent to the sustaining of said pleading or the granting of said motion or other application.

Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(e)(1); see also Wystrach v. Ciachurski, 2008 WL 467692, *2 (9th Cir. 2008) (considering similar Arizona Local Rule and refusing “to extend to motions to dismiss the requirement that a district court examine the merits of an unopposed motion for summary judgment before summarily granting it pursuant to a local rule.”); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming grant of an unopposed motion ...


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.