United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
C. Nye U.S. District Court Judge
December 6, 2016, the Clerk of the Court conditionally filed
pro se Plaintiff Colt Collis's Complaint subject to later
review by the Court. Dkt. 5. Because Collis requested to
proceed in forma pauperis, the Court conducted an initial
review of his Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to
determine whether he was entitled to proceed on his claims.
On May 16, 2017, Magistrate Judge Candy W. Dale issued an
order concluding that Collis's claims appeared subject to
dismissal for failure to state a claim. The Court, however,
granted Collis leave to amend his Complaint, and provided
instructions for him to correct the deficiencies identified.
did elect to file an Amended Complaint (Dkt. 17), and as
directed, filed an accompanying Motion to Review. Dkt. 16.
Collis also filed two motions which sought to clarify, add
to, or correct things in regards to his Amended Complaint.
Dkts. 18, 20.
September 13, 2017, Judge Dale issued an order indicating
that she had undertaken a review of Collis's Amended
Complaint and deficiencies still existed which warranted
dismissal. Dkt. 21. On October 13, 2017, Collis filed a
document outlining issues he believed Judge Dale missed or
decided incorrectly, and requesting leave to file a
the parties fail to consent to the jurisdiction of a United
States Magistrate Judge, a United States District Judge must
enter final orders under 28 U.S.C. § 636. The
undersigned District Judge was reassigned this case for
review complaints filed in forma pauperis against
governmental entities, officers, or employees of a
governmental entity to determine whether summary dismissal is
appropriate. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A.
Dismissal of the case is required at any time if the Court
determines the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Dale was initially assigned this case and, accordingly,
undertook an initial review of the claims. After completing
two full reviews of Collis's claims, Judge Dale issued an
Order reassigning the matter to this Court which also
included findings regarding her review of Collis's
Amended Complaint. Dkt. 21.
assertions in his Complaint broadly fall into three
categories: 1) claims regarding the Fair Housing Act; 2)
claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
and Rehabilitation Act; and 3) Idaho state tort claims. As
Judge Dale correctly determined, all of Collis's claims
are subject to dismissal. In regards to the first two
categories of claims, the defendants must be government
actors. Here, there is no indication that either Poplar
Grove, or the property management company for the apartment
complex, Tomlinson & Associates, Inc., are public
entities or receive federal financial assistance. In regards
to the third category of claims-Idaho state tort claims-
Collis never filed a Notice of Claim as required by law. It
is well settled that the filing of a Notice of Claim is
“a mandatory condition precedent to bringing suit, the
failure of which is fatal to a claim, no matter how
legitimate.” Banks v. Univ. of Idaho, 798 P.2d
452, 453 (Idaho 1990) (quoting McQuillen v. City of
Ammon, 747 P.2d 741, 744 (Idaho 1987)).
Court has reviewed the entire record in this case, including
the recently filed Motion addressing perceived deficiencies
in Judge Dale's Order. This Court concurs with Judge
Dale's conclusions as contained in her September 13 Order
and finds that she did not err in any respect. As such, this
Court adopts the findings and conclusions stated in Judge
the new information Collis presented in his most recent
Motion: first, nothing in Collis's Motion persuades the
Court that Judge Dale erred in her analysis; second, the
Court cannot change the requirements of the Idaho Tort Claims
Act to allow Collis to file a Notice of Claim beyond the
statutory timeframes. That request is, therefore, DENIED.
reasons stated in Judge Dale's Order, this Court finds
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for ...