Van Hook v. State

• Decision Date: 15 March 2022
• Docket Number: Docket No. 48601
• Parties: Ronald L. VAN HOOK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of Idaho, Respondent.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

506 P.3d 887

Ronald L. VAN HOOK, Petitioner-Appellant,

v.STATE of Idaho, Respondent.

Docket No. 48601

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, February 2022 Term.

Opinion Filed: March 15, 2022

Rehearing Denied: April 4, 2022

Ronald L. Van Hook, appellant pro se. Ronald L. Van Hook argued.

Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for respondent State of Idaho. Robert A. Berry argued.

PER CURIAM.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Ronald Van Hook was declared a vexatious litigant pursuant to Idaho Court Administrative Rule 59 on September 20, 2017. On appeal, this Court upheld the vexatious litigant determination. In re Prefiling Order Declaring Vexatious Litigant, Pursuant to I.C.A.R. 59 , 164 Idaho 586, 589, 434 P.3d 190, 193 (2019). Because he is a vexatious litigant, Van Hook is subject to a prefiling order, which, pursuant to Idaho Court Administrative Rule 59, requires him to seek leave from a court prior to filing new litigation pro se .

On January 21, 2021, "on behalf of his minor son" G.V.H., Van Hook filed a 28-page "Request for Leave to File Habeas Corpus and Juvenile Post-Conviction Relief" ("the Filing Request"). In the Filing Request, Van Hook alleged eight sets of "complaints" and asserted that numerous fundamental rights had been violated. He further requested a hearing on the Filing Request.

On January 26, 2021, without holding a hearing on the matter, the district court issued its Order Denying Leave to File Pleadings. The district court provided three separate bases for its denial of the Filing Request: 1) Van Hook, as a non-lawyer, could not engage in the unauthorized practice of law by representing his son in a civil court proceeding; 2) the petition for writ of habeas corpus was without merit; and 3) that Van Hook was attempting to re-litigate prior court decisions that had been finally decided against him. On January 27, 2021, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice.

Van Hook filed his Notice of Appeal on February 3, 2021. On February 9, 2021, this Court entered an Order Conditionally Dismissing Appeal, which stayed the proceedings, but allowed Van Hook time "to make application with the presiding district court judge permitting the notice of appeal to be filed, pursuant to I.C.A.R. 59(j)." The district court issued an Order Denying Leave to Appeal on February 16, 2021. However, on March 11, 2021, the district court entered an Amended Order on Leave to File Appeal, explaining that, "[a]t the time of issuing the [original] order, the [c]ourt was unaware that the Idaho Supreme Court" had instructed Van Hook "to seek leave of the district court to file an appeal." The district court granted Van Hook permission to appeal "the narrow issue of whether [the district court's] decision to deny Mr. Van Hook's motion for leave to file litigation was arbitrary and capricious and/or in violation of his due process rights." On March 18, 2021, this Court entered its Order Withdrawing Order Conditionally Dismissing Appeal and ordered that "[t]he appeal shall proceed on the narrow issue of whether the District Court's decision to deny Appellant's Motion for Leave to File Litigation was arbitrary and capricious and/or in violation of his due process rights."

At some point, in a motion not in the record before this Court, Van Hook also moved the district court to reconsider its Order Denying Leave to File Pleadings. The district court denied the motion to reconsider on February 9, 2021.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

As a matter of first impression, we must first determine the standard of review which applies when this Court reviews a presiding judge's denial of a vexatious litigant's request to file new litigation pursuant to Idaho Court Administrative Rule 59(i). Rule 59(i) provides that "[a] presiding judge shall permit the filing of new litigation by a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order only if it appears that the litigation has merit and has not been filed for the purpose of harassment or delay." I.C.A.R. 59(i). We conclude the appropriate standard of review under these circumstances is de novo .

In determining the correct standard of review to apply to the Administrative Rules in the context of vexatious litigants, this Court has previously looked to analogous court proceedings. Telford v. Nye , 154 Idaho 606, 609–10, 301 P.3d 264, 267–68 (2013). A decision not to permit a filing pursuant to Rule 59(i) is analogous to dismissing a case for failure to state a claim for relief pursuant to Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(6) allows civil defendants to move to dismiss the case for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted[.]" I.R.C.P. 12(b)(6). This is analogous to Rule 59(i) ’s requirement that the district court determine whether "the litigation has merit[.]" As such, the proper standard of review to apply when reviewing a presiding judge's denial of a vexatious litigant's request to file new litigation pursuant to Rule 59(i) is the same standard used when reviewing a district court's granting of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) : "After viewing all facts and inferences from the record in favor of the non-moving party, the Court will ask whether a claim for relief has been stated." Losser v. Bradstreet , 145 Idaho 670, 673, 183 P.3d 758, 761 (2008) (quoting Gallagher v. State , 141 Idaho 665, 667, 115 P.3d 756, 758 (2005) ). "The issue is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but whether the party is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims." Id. (quoting Sumpter v. Holland Realty, Inc. , 140 Idaho 349, 351, 93 P.3d 680, 682 (2004) ).

"Due process issues are generally questions of law, and this Court exercises free review over questions of law." Neighbors for a Healthy Gold Fork v. Valley Cnty. , 145 Idaho 121, 127, 176 P.3d 126, 132 (2007).

III. ANALYSIS

A. The district court did not err in denying Van Hook's Filing Request.

The district court denied Van Hook's Filing Request for three distinct reasons. First, the district court found that the Filing Request was an attempt to engage in the unauthorized practice of law in violation of Idaho Code section 3-104. The district court noted that Van Hook sought to file a post-conviction action—which, while related to a criminal case, is a separate civil matter—on behalf of his minor son, G.V.H. The district court found that Van Hook, as a non-attorney, could not "file a petition for post-conviction relief on behalf of his son," and, therefore, the petition for post-conviction relief lacked merit.

Second, the district court found that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus also lacked merit. The district court noted that there is an exception to the prohibition on the unauthorized practice of law in the habeas context, and addressed Van Hook's request on the merits. Citing Idaho Code section 19-4202, the district court then found that "nothing presented in the motion confers jurisdiction on this [c]ourt to hear a motion for leave to file a habeas petition in his son's juvenile case" because the motion was not filed in "[t]he district court of the county in which the person is detained." The district court noted that, while "Van Hook appears to argue that decisions made in his divorce case(s) have somehow caused a confinement[,]" "it is clear from the factual allegations made by Mr. Van Hook that G.V.H. resides with him in Payette County and is otherwise not unlawfully physically restrained."

Third, the district court explicitly found that "[t]he proposed litigation has been filed for the purpose of harassment and/or delay." The district court noted that "Van Hook repeatedly discusses decisions in a plethora of cases in other jurisdictions" and "consistently focuses on perceived wrongs perpetrated by the legal community on him rather than his son." "It is clear from the allegations from Mr. Van Hook that he is attempting to re-litigate decisions that have been finally determined by courts of other jurisdictions." "In doing so, the [c]ourt f[ou]nd[ ] that Mr. Van Hook's overriding purpose for filing a petition for habeas and a petition for post-conviction relief is that of harassment and delay of orders Mr. Van Hook disagrees with."

1. The district court did not err in denying Van Hook's request to file a petition for post-conviction relief on behalf of his son.

On appeal, Van Hook cites Idaho Code section 19-202A and argues that the district court erred in denying his request to file a petition for post-conviction relief on behalf of his minor son because "it is the right, and duty of any fit parent, to defend their child from harm." Van Hook contends that "a parent can assist his minor child in his defense at trial" but asserts "that parental assistance was never allowed at any court procedure dealing with [G.V.H.]" Van Hook argues that the district court should have either granted his request to file on his son's behalf or appointed his son legal counsel. Van Hook further states that, if he was truly attempting to participate in the unauthorized practice of law, the district court "was in error for failing to charge Van Hook with the crime it says was committed."

The State responds that the district court was correct in determining Van Hook was attempting to engage in the unauthorized practice of law because, while a parent may "assist a minor" "under certain circumstances" in a criminal case, a petition for post-conviction relief is civil in nature. Because Van Hook is not an attorney, the State argues, he was unable to file a civil case on behalf of his minor son.

In reply, Van Hook asserts that, even if the district court could not charge him with the unauthorized practice of law, the district court was "required by the Judicial Cannons [sic] to report a violation to the appropriate authority... [sic] which they clearly did not." Van Hook further contends that his "son[’]s juvenile proceedings were full of fraud on the court, and a malicious prosecution without effective counsel."

...