Roberts v. State

• Decision Date: 18 October 2021
• Docket Number: 48085
• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals
• Parties: LANCE A. ROBERTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF IDAHO, TETON COUNTY, IDAHO; TETON COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY BILLIE SIDDOWAY, Defendants-Respondents, and JOHN DOES I-X, Defendants.

LANCE A. ROBERTS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF IDAHO, TETON COUNTY, IDAHO; TETON COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY BILLIE SIDDOWAY, Defendants-Respondents,

and JOHN DOES I-X, Defendants.

No. 48085

Court of Appeals of Idaho

October 18, 2021

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Teton County. Hon. Steven Boyce, District Judge.

Judgment dismissing complaint, order denying motion for reconsideration, and award of attorney fees, affirmed.

Lance A. Roberts, Victor, pro se appellant.

Hall Angell & Associate, LLP; Blake G. Hall, Idaho Falls, for respondent.

HUSKEY, Chief Judge

Lance A. Roberts appeals from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the State of Idaho, Teton County, Idaho; Teton County Prosecuting Attorney's Office; and Prosecuting Attorney Billie Siddoway (respondents), the district court's order denying Roberts' motion for reconsideration, and the district court's award of attorney fees and costs to respondents. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

1

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Roberts, through counsel, filed a complaint against the named respondents, as well as John Does I-X, alleging that Roberts was "illegally and wrongfully sentenced and/or wrongfully imprisoned through the actions of the State of Idaho, the Teton County Magistrate Court under the direction of and pursuant to the request and actions of the Teton County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, Billie Siddoway and John Does I-X." Roberts' complaint was based on his multiple driving under the influence (DUI) convictions. Roberts claimed many of his prior DUI convictions were improperly charged and, therefore, he has been wrongfully sentenced and/or imprisoned, and as a result, he incurred monetary damages.^[1] Specifically, Roberts argued that his DUI charges in CR-1998-096 and CR-1998-128 should not have been charged pursuant to Idaho Code § 18-8004(1)(a) (DUI), but rather, pursuant to I.C. § 18-8004(1)(d) (under 21 DUI) because Roberts was not yet twenty-one years of age when he was charged and pleaded guilty in those two cases. Roberts argued that as a result of these charging errors, all of Roberts' subsequent DUI convictions are invalid and the respondents are liable under the Idaho Tort Claims Act for all erroneous charging decisions, including charging Roberts as a felon and as a persistent violator in CR-2016-047, which resulted in fines and periods of incarceration.

Respondents filed a motion for summary judgment, which was set for hearing. Roberts filed a motion to continue the hearing and requested additional time to conduct discovery. The district court granted the motion and reset the hearing. After the motion for summary judgment hearing, the district court issued its decision granting respondents' motion for summary judgment. Respondents timely filed a memorandum of costs and attorney fees. On April 3, 2020, the district court entered a final judgment dismissing all claims with prejudice. On May 3, 2020, Roberts,

2

although still represented by counsel, filed a pro se motion to reconsider. On June 11, 2020, the district court issued an order allowing Roberts' counsel to withdraw.

In September 2020, the district court denied the motion to reconsider, finding that it was untimely pursuant to Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 11.2 because Roberts failed to file the motion within fourteen days of entry of the final judgment. Although Roberts characterized the motion as a motion to reconsider, the district court also analyzed whether Roberts was entitled to relief under I.R.C.P. 60; the district court concluded he was not.

The district court issued an order awarding respondents $31, 190.00 in attorney fees and $1, 167.85 in costs. The district court found that Roberts waived all objections to respondents' request for costs and fees because he failed to timely file a motion to disallow the attorney fees pursuant to I.R.C.P. 54(e)(6).^[2] The district court also found the case was brought and maintained in bad faith for multiple reasons: (1) Roberts failed to file a bond before initiating the action; (2) Roberts failed to personally name any prosecutor who had been involved with the criminal cases set forth in the complaint; (3) Roberts named Siddoway in her personal capacity despite Roberts' acknowledgement that Siddoway was not involved with any of the relevant criminal cases; (4) Roberts failed to state a cause of action for which relief could be granted, as Roberts asserted that respondents were negligent in charging him as a persistent violator despite clear evidence that Roberts had been found guilty of three felonies; and (5) Roberts failed to amend his complaint or submit an amended response to the motion for summary judgment despite requesting, and the district court granting, additional time to conduct discovery.

Following the filing of the amended final judgment and judgment of costs and fees, Roberts filed a notice of appeal. Roberts did not request a transcript on appeal, and the Idaho Supreme Court ordered the appeal to proceed on the clerk's record only. Thereafter, Roberts filed a motion to augment the record, which was granted in part and denied in part.

3

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

On appeal, we exercise free review in determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Edwards v. Conchemco, Inc., 111 Idaho 851, 852, 727 P.2d 1279, 1280 (Ct. App. 1986). Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. I.R.C.P. 56(c). The movant has the burden of showing that no genuine issues of material fact exist. Stoddart v. Pocatello Sch. Dist. No. 25, 149 Idaho 679, 683, 239 P.3d 784, 788 (2010). The burden may be met by establishing the absence of evidence on an element that the nonmoving party will be required to prove at trial. Dunnick v. Elder, 126 Idaho 308, 311, 882 P.2d 475, 478 (Ct. App. 1994). Such an absence of evidence may be established either by an affirmative showing with the moving party's own evidence or by a review of all the nonmoving party's evidence and the contention that such proof of an element is lacking. Heath v. Honker's Mini-Mart, Inc., 134 Idaho 711, 712, 8 P.3d 1254, 1255 (Ct. App. 2000). Once such an absence of evidence has been established, the burden then shifts to the party opposing the motion to show, via further depositions, discovery responses or affidavits, that there is indeed a genuine issue for trial or to offer a valid justification for the failure to do so under I.R.C.P. 56(d). Sanders v. Kuna Joint Sch. Dist., 125 Idaho 872, 874, 876 P.2d 154, 156 (Ct. App. 1994). Disputed facts and reasonable inferences are construed in favor of the nonmoving party. Castorena v. Gen. Elec., 149 Idaho 609, 613, 238 P.3d 209, 213 (2010). This Court freely reviews issues of law. Cole v. Kunzler, 115 Idaho 552, 555, 768 P.2d 815, 818 (Ct. App. 1989).

The decision to grant or deny a request for reconsideration generally rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. Campbell v. Reagan, 144 Idaho 254, 258, 159 P.3d 891, 895 (2007); Carnell v. Barker Mgmt. Inc., 137 Idaho 322, 329, 48 P.3d 651, 658 (2002).

III.

ANALYSIS

Roberts, appearing pro se on appeal, asserts sixteen issues in his opening brief. Respondents contend that Roberts has made only three assignments of error on appeal. Respondents further assert that Roberts has failed to provide legal argument or authority to support the majority of his issues and that most of Roberts' issues are raised for the first time on appeal.

4

A. The District Court's Judgment Dismissing the Complaint Is Affirmed

Roberts alleges ten issues (designated in appellant's brief as issues 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, and 14) related to the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of respondents. We note that Roberts is appearing pro se in this appeal. Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as those litigants represented by counsel. Michalk v. Michalk, 148 Idaho 224, 229, 220 P.3d 580, 585 (2009). Pro se litigants are not excused from abiding by procedural rules simply because they are appearing pro se and may not be aware of the applicable rules. Id. While the district court's memorandum decision on summary judgment was filed with the notice of appeal, the memorandum was not included in the clerk's record, as part of Roberts' motion to augment the clerk's record, or in the augmented record. Because the memorandum decision on summary judgment is not included in the appellate record, Roberts has failed to present an adequate record to review assignments of error arising from the district court's memorandum decision. The Court is bound by the record on appeal and cannot consider matters or materials that are not part of the record or not contained in the record. Kootenai Cty. v. Harriman-Saylor, 154 Idaho 13, 16, 293 P.3d 637, 640 (2012); see also Med. Recovery Servs., LLC v. Eddins, __ P.3d__, __, __ Idaho__, __ (Sept. 1, 2021) (declining to consider claims that district court erred by failing to rule on motion for reconsideration or in its application of judicial estoppel when appellant did not ensure motion for reconsideration or relevant briefing from intermediate appeal was included in record on appeal). Moreover, the Court does not search the record for error, as it is the responsibility...