Opinion
Case No. CR-91-0409-S-BLW
July 25, 2001
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
Counsel for the plaintiffs filed a motion on behalf of the class seeking to have this case voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. The Court preliminarily granted that motion in its Memorandum Decision and Order dated September 20, 2000. However, given that this litigation is a class action, the Court needed to provide, and has provided, the individual class members with an opportunity to object to class counsel's motion. Now before the Court are 27 objections filed by class members and other objectors.
Also before the Court are Plaintiff Drennon's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 240), Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Docket No. 241), Motion to Hold in Abeyance Notice of Appeal (Docket No. 246), Motion for Hearing on Defendant's Conduct (Docket No. 274), Motion to Extend Time of File Objection (Docket No. 279), Motion for Entry of Contempt and for Hearing to Show Cause (Docket No. 294), Motion for Hearing on Plaintiff's Request for Entry of Contempt (Docket No. 297), Motion to Compel Defendants to Provide Videotapes (Docket No. 300), and Motion to Extend Time to File Reply to Defendants' Response to the TRO and/or Preliminary Injunction and Response to the Court's Intent to Dismiss Case (Docket No. 330). In addition, Plaintiff Brayen Finch moves for an extension of time to respond (Docket No. 248), and Defendants move to strike dockets 289, 295, 298, and 275 (Docket Nos. 304, 306, 308 and 321).
I. Objections to the Court's Notice of Dismissal
Having made a thorough review of the inmates' objections, the Court observes that they can be construed to fall into four categories: (1) objections indicating a general desire to keep the litigation going in order to obtain a sentence reduction or access "the pool of funds" in order to retain an attorney (e.g. docket nos. 251, 257, 258, 260); (2) objections indicating discontent that the inmate's rights could have been violated although they are now barred from petitioning their sentencing court for post-conviction relief (e.g. docket nos. 265, 267); (3) objections claiming that the prisoner has not received legal notice regarding the case (e.g. docket nos. 265, 267, 272); and (4) objections indicating a lack of knowledge about who or what this case involves (e.g. docket nos. 256, 269). Regarding these objections, Plaintiffs' counsel adhere to their earlier conclusion that no sufficient basis exists to proceed with this litigation, although they request a Court ruling that further prosecution of this class action only is inappropriate, thereby leaving open the right of individual members of the class to petition for post-conviction relief based upon grounds not addressed in this litigation.
The Court agrees with this conclusion, and will therefore dismiss this case. Regarding type (1) and (2) objections, the Court notes that plaintiff class members are not entitled to injunctive relief. As the Court previously noted, the past Riders are now barred by the Idaho statute of limitations from obtaining relief unless an inmate's individual case is still pending. It appears that Idaho state courts have been unanimous in rejecting the attempts by past Riders to obtain relief under Browning beyond the statute of limitations, which expired approximately nearly four years ago. Bell v. State, 128 Idaho 62, 910 P.2d 176 (Ct.App. 1996); Sosa v. State, 127 Idaho 766, 906 P.2d 136 (Ct.App. 1995); January v. State, 127 Idaho 634, 903 P.2d 1331 (Ct.App. 1995).
Regarding type (3) objections, the Court notes that each of these inmates signed a form of acknowledgment that they received the Notice to Inmates as ordered by the Court. See Wilson Affidavit A-C. Thus, the notice to which they refer must be some other notice. The Court assumes that they are arguing that they have not received notice of the pendency of this action. However, a notice to the class was approved and posted in February-March, 1995. The September 30, 1994 Order was published in the Federal Supplement Reporter. There was ample opportunity for these three inmates to discover the existence of both this case and the Court's remedial order in this case. Regarding type (4) objections, the Court can only conclude that the objections make unreasonable requests given the nature and breadth of this case, and that the Court is satisfied with the notice that has gone out. Given the Court's belief that any further remedy is foreclosed due to the statute of limitations, the Court is satisfied that the inmates making type (4) objections are not entitled to relief in this case.
II. Other Pending Motions
Mr. Drennon's motions and allegations must be viewed through the narrow focus of this case. In this case, the Court must determine whether Mr. Drennon has been given the opportunity to assist class counsel in identifying members of the class who need to be given notice of dismissal, and whether Mr. Drennon, as a member of the class, has been given an adequate opportunity to object to the dismissal of this case. In all other respects, Drennon's motions and allegations are either irrelevant to the issues of this case or unsubstantiated and without merit. The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of this action on January 18, 2000. Mr. Drennon did not notify this Court of any problem with his legal materials for over a year. Thus, Mr. Drennon was afforded at least one year in which to assist counsel in identifying and contacting any class members regarding the motion to dismiss. Mr. Drennon has had more than sufficient time in which to object to the dismissal. Indeed, he did object to class counsel's original motion to dismiss, and has had ample time since then to object, as other class members have done.
The Court notes that Mr. Drennon has filed virtually identical motions to the substantive motions he has filed in this case in Drennon v. Hayden, CV99-0466-S-BLW and Drennon v. Miller CV97-148-S-BLW. The allegations set forth in Mr. Drennon's motions and affidavits are worthy of the Court's attention, however, are best discussed in the context of those cases, to which they have some relevance.
Of greatest concern to the Court is Mr. Drennon' s allegation that a list of possible class members deserving notice was removed from a letter to Mr. Pevar and Ms. Drennon. Defendants adamantly deny the allegation. Given the affidavit testimony, the lack of a reason for the Defendants to interfere in such a manner, and Mr. Drennon's own credibility and interest in delaying dismissal of this case, the Court is satisfied that no such list was removed as alleged. Mr. Pevar has not indicated a concern regarding the "missing" list of possible class members.
In sum, the Court is satisfied that the class has been adequately identified and notified, that any remaining claims are moot, and that Mr. Drennon's allegations are irrelevant or unsubstantiated as to this matter, and best addressed in the context of his other actions.
Accordingly,
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that Plaintiff Drennon's: Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 240) is MOOT; Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Docket No. 241) is MOOT, Motion to Hold in Abeyance Notice of Appeal (Docket No. 246) is MOOT, Motion for Hearing on Defendant's Conduct (Docket No. 274) is MOOT, Motion to Extend Time of File Objection (Docket No. 279) is DENIED, Motion for Entry of Contempt and for Hearing to Show Cause (Docket No. 294)is MOOT, Motion for Hearing on Plaintiffs Request for Entry of Contempt (Docket No. 297) is DENIED, Motion to Compel Defendant's to Provide Videotapes (Docket No. 300) is MOOT, and Motion to Extend Time to File Reply to Defendants' Response to the TRO and/or Preliminary Injunction and Response to the Court's Intent to Dismiss Case (Docket No. 330) is MOOT. In addition, Plaintiff Brayen Finch's Motion for an Extension of Time (Docket No. 248) is DENIED, and Defendants' Motions to Strike Documents 289, 295, 298, and 275 (Docket Nos. 304, 306, 308 and 321) are MOOT.