In this case, plaintiff Autumn Pauls, a former inmate at Adams County Jail, sued the county, Sheriff Rich Green, and Officer Butch Gibson under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Gibson coerced her into sexual acts in violation of her Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, along with related state-law claims. The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, for summary judgment on the merits, and related discovery motions. The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the PLRA's exhaustion requirement did not apply because the grievance procedures were not available to Pauls after her prompt transfer to another facility. It granted in part and denied in part the summary judgment motions, granted in part the motion to strike and the request for evidentiary sanctions, and addressed various discovery issues.
This case involves Elven Joe Swisher's motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence, in which he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel primarily due to an actual conflict of interest arising from his attorneys' prior representation of David Hinkson in a separate prosecution, as well as other unrelated deficiencies in their performance. The court dismissed both the original and renewed § 2255 motions after reviewing the filings, the government's response, and the underlying criminal record. The record included details of Swisher's disputed claims of military service and combat experience, his testimony as a government witness in the Hinkson trial, and questions raised about the authenticity of his military documents. The court concluded that the claims did not warrant relief.
The case concerned a motion by ranchers to modify a prior court injunction that had banned grazing on 28 allotments in the Jarbidge Resource Area due to failures to meet rangeland health standards and impacts on sage grouse habitat. After a settlement allowed limited grazing under interim plans, a major wildfire, expiration of those plans, and subsequent BLM actions prompted the ranchers to seek relief under Rule 60(b)(5). The court granted the motion in part, finding significant changes in factual circumstances that made the total ban no longer equitable. It modified the injunction to permit grazing subject to specific conditions, including limits on timing and intensity in key habitat areas, compliance with stubble height standards, burned-area closures, and annual reporting to the court. The decision emphasized that modifications should be narrowly tailored to address the changed conditions while the BLM completes its environmental reviews and permit renewals.
This case involved plaintiff Wanda Collier, who sued her employer Turner Industries, supervisor David Eastridge, and related parties at Agrium for gender discrimination and harassment under Title VII, Section 1983, and Idaho state laws, claiming she faced hostile treatment and was ultimately fired because she was a woman. The court granted the defendants' summary judgment motions in part, dismissing claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of the Idaho Human Rights Act, breach of contract, breach of implied duty of good faith, promissory estoppel, and punitive damages on state claims, while narrowing the Title VII hostile work environment claim to a single incident of pushing on September 10, 2008. The court denied the motions as to the remaining claims. The reasoning centered on the lack of sufficient evidence to support the dismissed claims under applicable legal standards, while finding genuine issues of material fact regarding gender bias in the surviving claims based on incidents involving Daniell and statements by Eastridge.
In Nu-West Mining Inc. v. United States, the plaintiffs sought to hold the federal government liable under CERCLA for costs to clean up selenium contamination at four phosphate mine sites in the Caribou-Targhee National Forest. The court granted the motion for partial summary judgment, finding the United States liable as an owner, operator, and arranger under 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a) with respect to the cleanup costs. This conclusion followed from the government's ownership of the land and middle waste shale containing selenium, its issuance of leases and permits that authorized mining and waste disposal, and its requirements for specific reclamation and waste-dump designs that caused the contamination to leach into the environment.
The case involved the Idaho Republican Party challenging the state's open primary election system, which allows any voter to participate in selecting a party's nominees without declaring affiliation. The court ruled that this system violates the Republican Party's First Amendment right to freedom of association. The reasoning centered on the fact that the open primary enables significant crossover voting by independents and members of other parties, thereby interfering with the party's ability to control its own nomination process. The decision was based on evidence from a bench trial showing the extent and impact of such voting.