Hoak v. Idaho Department of Corrections et al, No. 1:2010cv00138 - Document 67 (D. Idaho 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 50 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 52 Motion to Supplement; denying 59 Motion to Supplement; denying 62 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 63 Motion to Supplement. Nothing further is to be filed in this case without leave of the Court. Signed by Judge Larry M. Boyle. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by krb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO LARRY M. HOAK, Case No. 1:10-cv-00138-LMB Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER v. IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, JOHANNA SMITH, IDAHO CORRECTION CENTER OF AMERICA, VALDEZ, WEBB, PENAKY, THOMPSON, and REMERLZE, Defendants. ARTHUR A. HOAK, Case No. 1:10-cv-00250-LMB Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER v. VALDEZ and SMITH, Defendants. Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff Larry M. Hoak s Motion to Reconsider the Order dismissing his case (Dkt. 50) and four motions to supplement (Dkts. 52, 59, 62, 63). After reviewing the record and the argument of the parties, the Court enters the ORDER - 1 - following order denying Plaintiff s motions, and ordering that nothing further be filed in this case. On August 22, 2011, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs complaints. Order (Dkt. 49). However, the Court allowed time, until September 16, 2011, in which Plaintiffs could refile their complaints, so long as they prove that their claims are not barred for failure to exhaust. Id. at 6. Plaintiff Larry M. Hoak responded on September 19, 2011, with the same allegations contained in the complaint. Motion (Dkt. 50). His response is notably devoid of any evidence showing that he or his brother, Art, had exhausted his administrative remedies. Id. Instead, Plaintiff repeats the various allegations from his, and his brother s complaints. Plaintiff s four motions to supplement are made in the same vein, containing various unsupported allegations, which appear to be attempts to amend the complaint to add additional allegations, rather than cure deficient ones. Id. Because Plaintiff offers no new allegations or proof that would meet the constitutional standards identified in the Court s Order dismissing the complaints, the Court will deny Plaintiff s motions and order that nothing further be filed in this closed case. Order Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff s Motion to Reconsider (Dkt. 50) is DENIED; 2. Plaintiff s Motion to Supplement (Dkt. 52) is DENIED; ORDER - 2 - 3. Plaintiff s Motion to Supplement (Dkt. 59) is DENIED; 4. Plaintiff s Motion to Supplement (Dkt. 62) is DENIED; 5. Plaintiff s Motion to Supplement (Dkt. 63) is DENIED; and 6. Nothing further is to be filed in this case without leave of the Court. DATED: February 6, 2012. Honorable Larry M. Boyle United States Magistrate Judge ORDER - 3 -
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
