Storm v. Burgess et al

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER dismissing 11 Amended Complaint; 13 Amended Complaint; denying as moot 21 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying as moot 22 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying as moot 25 Motion for TRO. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by cjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

RICK STORM,
Case No. 1:09-cv-00360-BLW
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
TODD BURGESS, MORA LYNCH,
DARWIN CAMBRON, and KIM
HARVEY,
Defendants.

Plaintiff is a prisoner in the custody of the Idaho Department of Correction,
currently incarcerated at Idaho State Correctional Institution. In this action, he challenges
certain conditions of his now-revoked parole. On March 10, 2010, the Court reviewed
Plaintiff’s Complaint and determined that it did not allege sufficient facts to allow
Plaintiff to proceed at that time. See Initial Review Order, Dkt. 8, at 3-4. The Court
granted Plaintiff 30 days to amend or supplement his Complaint. Id. at 4-5. Plaintiff then
filed two documents: (1) the Amended Complaint (Dkt. 11); and (2) the Amended
Complaint Part 2 (Dkt. 13). The Court has reviewed both Amended Complaints and
concludes that this case must be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
ORDER - 1

In the Initial Review Order, the Court informed Plaintiff that if his parole
revocation occurred as a result of his violation of the special parole conditions of which
he complains, this civil rights action would be barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477
(1994). See Dkt. 8 at 3-4. Unfortunately, Plaintiff did not accept the Court’s invitation to
allege in the Amended Complaints which condition of parole he violated. Instead, he
states only that he returned to prison after he was granted parole. See Dkt. 13 at 7.
Plaintiff did not explain the relationship between the allegedly illegal parole conditions
and his parole revocation, making it impossible for the Court to determine whether a
decision invalidating those parole conditions would “necessarily demonstrate the
invalidity of [Plaintiff’s] confinement.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005).
Therefore, Plaintiff may not proceed on his civil rights claims challenging the conditions
of his parole.1
The Court gave Plaintiff clear guidance on what facts he needed to include in his
amendment, stating that Plaintiff “must clarify whether he is alleging that the allegedly
wrongful parole conditions caused the parole revocation, and whether he is alleging that
his parole revocation was wrongful.” Dkt. 8 at 4. Because Plaintiff did not do so, the
Court will dismiss this case without prejudice and deny all pending motions as moot. To
the extent Plaintiff wishes to pursue the access to courts claims that he describes in his

1

Plaintiff might not be foreclosed from seeking relief, however. He may be able to pursue his
claims on direct appeal of his probation revocation in state court, through the Uniform Post-Conviction
Procedure Act, Idaho Code §§ 19-4901 to 4911, or through federal habeas corpus proceedings, 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254.

ORDER - 2

motions, he must file a new action asserting those allegations.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaints (Dkts. 11 and 13) fail to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. Therefore, Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED
without prejudice.

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Add Respondents (Dkt. 21) is denied as MOOT.

3.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Respondents and Claims (Dkt. 22) is denied as
MOOT.

4.

Plaintiff’s Motion and Declaration for Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt.
25) is denied as MOOT.

DATED: July 28, 2011

Honorable B. Lynn Winmill
Chief U. S. District Judge

ORDER - 3