1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 40880

JAMES N. MOEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant

,

v.

OLIVIA CRAVEN, Executive Director of

Idaho Commissions of Parole and Pard ons, to include the unknown members thereof,

Defendants

- Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 459

Filed: April 17, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Patrick H. Owen , District Judge.

Order dismissing complaint, affirmed

.

James N. Moen, Boise, pro se appellant.

Respond ents did not participate on appeal.

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Judge; MELANSON, Judge; and SCHWARTZMAN, Judge Pro Tem

PER CURIAM

On or about May 17, 2012, James N. Moen filed a pro se prisoner civil rights complaint

and a motion for class certification with the district court. 1 After filing the complaint and

motion, Moen failed to take further action to prosecute his complaint. On January 18, 2013, the

district court filed a notice of intent to dismiss Moen’s c ase for failure to prosecute with due

diligence. Moen did not file a response to the intent to dismiss. On March 12, 2013, the district

1 Moen alleged multiple violations in his c iv il rights c omplaint including: an Americans with Disabilities Act violation for using his mental health status agains t his release during a parole board hearing; c ruel and unusual punishment in the form of ret aliation, accusing the parole board of “flopping” Moen fo r three years; and unconstitutional deprivation of rights, privileges, and immunities when the board refused to rel ease Moen onto parole upon completion

of the determinate or fixed portion of his sentence

.2 court issued an order dismissing Moen’s c ase without prejudice pursuant to Idaho Rule of Ci vil

Procedure 40(c)

. Moen appeals , contending the district court erred by dismissing his case

.

Rule 40 ( c ) provides, in pertinent part, “ In the absence of a showing of good cause for

retention, any action

. . . or proceeding

. . . in which no action has been taken or in which the

summons has not been issued and served, for a period of six (6) months shall be dismissed

. . . without prejudice.” In Idaho

, a trial court has the authority to dismiss a case if the plaintiff fail s

to prosecute

, and the decision to dismiss will not be overturn ed on appeal unless a manifest

abuse of discretion is shown. Kirkham v. 4.60 Acres of Land

, 100 Idaho 781, 783, 605 P.2d 959,

961 (1980)

. See also Agrodyne, Inc. v. Beard

, 114 Idaho 342, 345, 757 P.2d 205, 208 (Ct. App.

1988)

. When a trial court’s discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court

conducts a multi

- tiered inquiry to determine: (1) whether the lower court correctly perceived the

issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the lower court acted within the boundaries of such

discretion and consistently with any legal standards applicable t o the specific choices befor e it;

and (3) whether the court reached its decision by an exercise of reason. Sun Valley Shopping

Ctr., Inc. v. Idaho Power Co. , 119 Idaho 87, 94, 803 P.2d 993, 1000 (1991). Moen failed to

demonstrate a ny good cause for reten tion of his case

. As such , the district court did not abuse its

discretion by dismissing Moen’s case for inaction . The district court’s order of dismissal is

affirmed.