Source: http://id.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20170919_0000444.DID.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 00:48:32+00:00

Document:
IDAHO LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES, et al., Defendants.
HONORABLE RONALD E. BUSH CHIEF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
• The Meridian Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 30).
• Plaintiffs' Motion for Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Permanent Injunction (Docket No. 52).
• “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 compensatory damages and punitive damages in excess of $100, 000 per defendant named including unknown defendant's name or discovered.” Id. at ¶ 305.
• “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.
• “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.
• “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.
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).
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.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.