Hoak v. Idaho Department of Corrections et al

Filing 67

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 50 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 52 Motion to Supplement; denying 59 Motion to Supplement; denying 62 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 63 Motion to Supplement. Nothing further is to be filed in this case without leave of the Court. Signed by Judge Larry M. Boyle. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by krb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

LARRY M. HOAK,
Case No. 1:10-cv-00138-LMB
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER

v.
IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, JOHANNA SMITH,
IDAHO CORRECTION CENTER OF
AMERICA, VALDEZ, WEBB, PENAKY,
THOMPSON, and REMERLZE,
Defendants.
ARTHUR A. HOAK,

Case No. 1:10-cv-00250-LMB
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER

v.
VALDEZ and SMITH,
Defendants.

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff Larry M. Hoak’s Motion to Reconsider
the Order dismissing his case (Dkt. 50) and four motions to supplement (Dkts. 52, 59, 62,
63). After reviewing the record and the argument of the parties, the Court enters the

ORDER - 1 -

following order denying Plaintiff’s motions, and ordering that nothing further be filed in
this case.
On August 22, 2011, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaints. Order (Dkt. 49).
However, the Court allowed time, until September 16, 2011, in which Plaintiffs could
refile their complaints, so long as they prove that their claims are not barred for failure to
exhaust. Id. at 6. Plaintiff Larry M. Hoak responded on September 19, 2011, with the
same allegations contained in the complaint. Motion (Dkt. 50). His response is notably
devoid of any evidence showing that he or his brother, Art, had exhausted his
administrative remedies. Id. Instead, Plaintiff repeats the various allegations from his,
and his brother’s complaints.
Plaintiff’s four motions to supplement are made in the same vein, containing
various unsupported allegations, which appear to be attempts to amend the complaint to
add additional allegations, rather than cure deficient ones. Id. Because Plaintiff offers no
new allegations or proof that would meet the constitutional standards identified in the
Court’s Order dismissing the complaints, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motions and
order that nothing further be filed in this closed case.
Order
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (Dkt. 50) is DENIED;

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement (Dkt. 52) is DENIED;

ORDER - 2 -

3.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement (Dkt. 59) is DENIED;

4.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement (Dkt. 62) is DENIED;

5.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement (Dkt. 63) is DENIED; and

6.

Nothing further is to be filed in this case without leave of the Court.

DATED: February 6, 2012.

Honorable Larry M. Boyle
United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER - 3 -