IDAHO PRISONERS SEEK ACLU ASSISTANCE IN LAWSUIT TO OBTAIN LAW LIBRARY FACILITIES (11/3/17).
Idaho courts hold Idaho prisoners who proceed pro se (without an attorney) in having their convictions reviewed are held to the same legal standards as an attorney when it comes to "citing" legal precedent, or "cases". Unfortunately however, IDOC administrators have refused to provide access to the very case law the courts require prisoners to cite, creating a constitutional violation against which the IDOC, and state government as a whole will have to defend.
In a letter to the Idaho chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Dale Shackelford, a prisoner at the ISCC, requested the ACLU to represent [him] and similarly situated Idaho prisoners in a lawsuit with the goal of requiring IDOC administrators to provide access to a standard law library such as is available in almost every other state and federal prison facility.
Prison law libraries (in Idaho, ironically named Resource Centers) are not paid for with tax dollars - rather, books, research and other materials are funded by the Inmate Management Fund, monies collected from prisoners in the form of a surcharge (25% in Idaho) on virtually every commissary purchase, visiting room vending machine purchase, telephone call and kiosk service. In Idaho, these funds are currently used to pay the salary of staff who fill the position of Institutional Paralegal, even where staff so assigned have no legal training whatsoever, and are not supervised by a licensed attorney as required by law. There simply are no law libraries in the IDOC.
Currently, the ISCC has only a part-time "paralegal" staff position available to schedule [legal] telephone calls, attorney visits, notarize documents and hand out forms. At ISCC, the Resource Center is but a small (approximately 10' x 20') office, and with over 2,200 prisoners, is open less than 11 hours per week. IDOC Resource Centers do not provide or maintain any State or Federal reporters, digests, CJS or any other publications which publish cases decided in various courts, nor do IDOC Resource Centers provide access even to the entire set of Idaho State Code (Idaho laws).
In most county jail faciities around the country and even in Idaho, access to case law is made available to prisoners via limited-access computer (kiosk) terminals, and while IDOC has made kiosks available for various prisoner activities (commissary ordering, etc.) there is no electronic legal content being made available to IDOC prisoners. Such access would resolve all the consitutional questions regarding legal resource access for IDOC prisoners, reduce costs and decrease the number of frivolous lawsuits filed in the already overworked Idaho courts.
As of this date, Shackelford has not received any response from the ACLU. A copy of the letter to the ACLU is reproduced in it's entirety below. The Idaho chapter of the ACLU may be contacted at:
P.O. Box 1897
Boise, ID 83701
(208) 344-9750
www.acluidaho.org
(email) admin@acluidaho.org
Dear ACLU staff:
Since the "reinterpretation" of BOUNDS v. SMITH, 430 U.S. 817 (1977) by the U.S. Supreme Court in LEWIS v. CASEY, 518 U.S. 343 (1996), prisons all over the country have removed law / legal research libraries in an effort to reduce costs. Whether as a collateral consequence or by design, these actions also hamper the efforts of prisoners in fighting their convictions and engaging in lawsuits regarding prison conditions.
In Idaho, the Idaho Department of Correction (IDOC) has not only removed law libraries, the department does not provide access to legal materials or attorneys which are actually required for constitutional access to courts. Additionally, state and federal courts are requiring even pro se prisoners to "cite authority" in their initial filings and subsequent briefs, and are imposing sanctions, even punishment for filing or maintaining or defending actions which are considered "warrantless" or [legally] frivolous - despite not having access to materials to make the determination as to the viability of a claim.
I have set forth below some of the actual statutes, case law (cites) and Rules (of Court) which detail the facts described. I would request you take a moment to read these, and to consider representing me in a Class Action suit against the IDOC to require the state to provide research material (access) to Idaho prisoners. While it might seem oxymoronic that I am able to cite chapter and verse these authorities while complaining about the lack of access to the materials to do just that, this is the dilemma of filing such a case pro se - as, while I (personally) have some legal training, and have friends on the outside who will provide copies of cases or books as I might request, this is not the norm, as most prisoners have no such contacts or training. Whenever such a (research material access) case is filed by a pro se prisoner, the courts find that either the prisoner has access enough (to file/prosecute) the case, thus the claim is moot, or - most often - the case is dismissed for failure to cite authority, or on some procedural issue.
LACK OF IDAHO CODE BOOKS
Prisons of the IDOC do not maintain even a complete copy of Idaho Code (statutes) for use by prisoners. While attempting to justify the lack of nearly half the codified Idaho statutes available by reasoning that most prisoners wouldn't need to see the codes in preparing pre-printed forms to access the courts, the IDOC has taken the position that pre-printed forms that are provided for [initial complaints] provide all the access (to the courts) that is constitutionally required, and arguing that access to data necessary to the prosecution of an action (subsequent to a complaint, including an appeal) once initiated is not constitutionally required. Unfortunately, these forms, if available, are often inadequate, and in some cases, missing vital/requisite data which if not supplemented, may cause the action to be dismissed - with prejudice - by the courts.
An illustration of this issue involves the lack of access to Idaho Code, Title 39, Chapter 63 (Domestic Violence Crime Prevention). Many prisoners have been convicted of violating "protection" orders as described within this chapter, and many more, even while incarcerated, are still subject to terms and conditions described therein, yet the IDOC refuses to provide access to this state code to prisoners.
In a recent case, prisoner John Doe (name disclosed upon request) sought modification/enforcement of a child custody order authorizing visitation between himself and his child. Doe sent (served) a copy of the filing upon the designated contact [designated by the court in the custody order] for the mother of his biological child per Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 5 (C). In addition to being subjected to discliplinary action by the IDOC for violating a no-contact order (which was not even in effect at the time) due to a complaint directly to prison administrators by the mother, Mr. Doe found himself sitting in court fighting a motion for a protection order filed by his ex-wife (in favor of herself and the child). Even with this, the prisoner was denied access to the statutes by the state.
RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS
It is clear to most in the legal community that to make any determination as to whether or not a perceived claim is "warranted" a person must research that claim/issue, research whether or not there have been any rulings by any court on material facts which are the same or similar, determine whether or not the claim is cognizable, determine personal and subject matter jurisdiction of the court and present a cogent complaint, followed by [Shepardizing] and citing current authority. Failure to do these things can, and in the case of a pro se prisoner often will result in the dismissal of the complaint/action as [legally] frivolous.
Idaho Code 20-209E provides that a prisoner who has filed a "frivolous or malicious" claim in any state, federal or administrative court is subject to discliplinary detention and loss of privileges. "Frivolous", in this context, is defined as "Lacking a legal basis or legal merit". (Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Pocket Edition.) The IDOC also maintains a Standard Operating Procedure which makes such filings a discliplinary offense.
Idaho Code 12-117 (1) provides that a court may award witness, attorney and other fees to a party if the court determines that the "non-prevailing party acted without a reasonable basis in fact or law." I.C. 12-123 (b)(ii) defines frivolous conduct as [a case] which is "not supported by fact or warranted UNDER EXISTING LAW and cannot be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law." [EMPHASIS ADDED]. Even in a habeas corpus action, courts can award attorney fees to the state against a jail or state prisoner where, "even if the factual allegations were true, they did not, AS A MATTER OF LAW justify relief to the petitioner." (I.C. 12-122) [EMPHASIS ADDED]. The courts have noted under this section that such action may be deemed not frivolous when the action involves "a material issue of law that has not been settled by statute or by supreme court decision in this state." (id). Without available research materials however, it is nearly impossible for anyone to make these determinations before initiating or defending against any action in the courts.
Courts may also make a declaration that a prisoner is a "vexatious litigant" upon the filing of an action which "is not warranted under existing law", cannot be supported by a good faith argument for the modification or reversal of an existing law, and/or has commenced - pro se - three (3) or more actions which have been determined (adjudicated) adversely [to them] within a seven (7) year period. (Idaho Court Administrative Rule 59 et seq.). Claims/actions which do not meet the minimums set forth in Rule 12 of the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure (IRCP) or Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). Being declared a vexatious litigant, amongst other things, prevents a prisoner from filing a complaint without first paying an entire filing fee subject to exceptions whereby a judge must first review and approve such filing as well as to a myriad prefiling orders/restrictions imposed by a court.
Obviously, without access to legal research materials, it is difficult, if not impossible to make a prefiling determination that a claim is not "warranted under existing law"
AUTHORITY REQUIREMENTS
Idaho has a long history of denying claims simply for failure of a party to "cite authority" in a brief, complaint or other filing (see e.g. CALLENDERS, Inc. v. BECKMAN, 116 Idaho 857, 858, 780 P.2d 1115, 1116 (1989) - cited in ORDER DENYING RULE 59(e) MOTION, at page 4 in SHACKELFORD v. McKAY, ET AL., Ada County Case No. CV-OC-2016-5583 filed 10 August 2017).
Without access to these authority (i.e., research materials - case law), prisoners are prejudiced to the point where pro se litigation is both legally and practically worthless. Prisoners are stuck between the perverbial rock and a hard place in that prisoners who file an action / complaint on lack of a law library / research materials which have clearly been researched and adequately cite authority will have their cases dismissed as moot - while those who do not cite the authority as required will have the cases dismissed for failure to cite that authority.
Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 (et. seq.) allows - as an affirmative defense - a defendant to seek dismissal of an action / complaint on the grounds of lack of subject matter and/or personal jurisdiction and failure of the complaintant to state a claim upon which relief may be granted (IRCP/FRCP Rule 12(b)(1), (2) and (6) respectively). Without adequate research materials, pro se prisoners can rarely ascertain whether or not their complaint meets these minimum standards, thus even the act of filing what is thought to be a valid complaint with the court can subject a prisoner to many adverse effects, not including the dismissal of the suit and the cost(s) of filing and service of the action. The IDOC maintains Standard Operating Procedures for collecting judgments by the courts in these cases by not only attaching inmate trust accounts, but literally going into a prisoners cell and taking their personal property and belongings.
APPEALS
Even in instances where Idaho prisoners have a [state created] RIGHT to appeal ("An appeal as a matter of right may be taken to the Supreme Court from the following judgments and orders..." - Idaho Appellate Rule 11) courts are not required to appoint counsel to represent a prisoner on [that] appeal - even if the prisoner cannot afford counsel - and the appeal, if it is to happen, must be done pro se, usually with the assistance of a "jailhouse lawyer" (as we are often called).
In instances where courts appoint counsel on appeal as a matter of right (such as in a direct appeal from conviction), counsel often withdraws without due consideration of the facts or claims of the case, leaving the prisoner to proceed pro se if the appeal is to continue. In Idaho, there is no requirement that direct (or other) appeal counsel file a "merits brief" as required in some jurisdictions and described in ANDERS v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1969). Without the ability to conduct research, and/or cite legal authority, Idaho prisoners have virtually no options for [successfully] appealing their criminal convictions where overworked and overbooked attorneys, whether the State Appellate Public Defender's Office (SAPD) or conflict counsel simply don't want to deal with the type of case presented, or have the time/resources to research and round out the issues - and without need for an Anders brief, there is no one the wiser.
It is well established in Idaho law that an appellate court will not consider a claim of error that is not supported by both argument and citation to authority. STATE v. GARZIAN, 144 Idaho 510, 518, 164 P.3d 790, 798 (2007) (Garzian makes no citation to authority as required by Idaho Appellate Rule 35 (a)(6) and has not preserved the issue for appellate review) STATE v. DIAZ, 144 Idaho 300, 303, 160 P.3d 737, 742 (2007) (claim not preserved for appellate review where Diaz failed to present any argument or authority in his opening brief to support this contention) STATE v. ZICHKO, 129 Idaho 259, 263, 923 P.2d 966, 970 (1996) (when issues on appeal are not supported by propositions of law, authority, or argument, they will not be considered). These requirements for citing authority encompass both criminal (direct) and civil appeals in Idaho.
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, regarding the King of England (i.e., government): "HE has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable and, distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures." Removing the means by which a person may initiate, prosecute or appeal a case is the modern version of Jefferson's observations, and I would request any assistance in righting these issues that you might be willing to provide. Of course, I will work with your office by filing the requisite administrative grievances and exhausting any remedies that might be required.
The fact that even most county jails across the country, (even some in Idaho) provide prisoner access to legal research materials (usually through computer kiosks with LexisNexis accounts) the reasonable costs associated with this type of access (IDOC already has prisoner accessible kiosks in every facility) and the fact that all monies expended by the IDOC come directly from the Inmate Management Fund (not from taxpayer dollars) gives even more credence to the argument that the IDOC simply does not want prisoners to be able to successfully litigate actions either in behalf of themselves (criminal, post-conviction, habeas corpus, et al.) or against the department/state (civil rights, et al.). A well-constructed class action civil rights suit to require the research materials to be provided would likely result in a settlement that would benefit everyone involved, and provide access to the necessary materials to prisoners for decades to come.
Thank you for your consideration of this issue. Please let me know that you have received this email communication by replying to the email from which it was sent.
Respectfully yours,
/s/ Dale C. Shackelford
#64613 / ISCC / Unit F
P.O. Box 70010
Boise, ID 83707
In a letter to the Idaho chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Dale Shackelford, a prisoner at the ISCC, requested the ACLU to represent [him] and similarly situated Idaho prisoners in a lawsuit with the goal of requiring IDOC administrators to provide access to a standard law library such as is available in almost every other state and federal prison facility.
Prison law libraries (in Idaho, ironically named Resource Centers) are not paid for with tax dollars - rather, books, research and other materials are funded by the Inmate Management Fund, monies collected from prisoners in the form of a surcharge (25% in Idaho) on virtually every commissary purchase, visiting room vending machine purchase, telephone call and kiosk service. In Idaho, these funds are currently used to pay the salary of staff who fill the position of Institutional Paralegal, even where staff so assigned have no legal training whatsoever, and are not supervised by a licensed attorney as required by law. There simply are no law libraries in the IDOC.
Currently, the ISCC has only a part-time "paralegal" staff position available to schedule [legal] telephone calls, attorney visits, notarize documents and hand out forms. At ISCC, the Resource Center is but a small (approximately 10' x 20') office, and with over 2,200 prisoners, is open less than 11 hours per week. IDOC Resource Centers do not provide or maintain any State or Federal reporters, digests, CJS or any other publications which publish cases decided in various courts, nor do IDOC Resource Centers provide access even to the entire set of Idaho State Code (Idaho laws).
In most county jail faciities around the country and even in Idaho, access to case law is made available to prisoners via limited-access computer (kiosk) terminals, and while IDOC has made kiosks available for various prisoner activities (commissary ordering, etc.) there is no electronic legal content being made available to IDOC prisoners. Such access would resolve all the consitutional questions regarding legal resource access for IDOC prisoners, reduce costs and decrease the number of frivolous lawsuits filed in the already overworked Idaho courts.
As of this date, Shackelford has not received any response from the ACLU. A copy of the letter to the ACLU is reproduced in it's entirety below. The Idaho chapter of the ACLU may be contacted at:
P.O. Box 1897
Boise, ID 83701
(208) 344-9750
www.acluidaho.org
(email) admin@acluidaho.org
Dear ACLU staff:
Since the "reinterpretation" of BOUNDS v. SMITH, 430 U.S. 817 (1977) by the U.S. Supreme Court in LEWIS v. CASEY, 518 U.S. 343 (1996), prisons all over the country have removed law / legal research libraries in an effort to reduce costs. Whether as a collateral consequence or by design, these actions also hamper the efforts of prisoners in fighting their convictions and engaging in lawsuits regarding prison conditions.
In Idaho, the Idaho Department of Correction (IDOC) has not only removed law libraries, the department does not provide access to legal materials or attorneys which are actually required for constitutional access to courts. Additionally, state and federal courts are requiring even pro se prisoners to "cite authority" in their initial filings and subsequent briefs, and are imposing sanctions, even punishment for filing or maintaining or defending actions which are considered "warrantless" or [legally] frivolous - despite not having access to materials to make the determination as to the viability of a claim.
I have set forth below some of the actual statutes, case law (cites) and Rules (of Court) which detail the facts described. I would request you take a moment to read these, and to consider representing me in a Class Action suit against the IDOC to require the state to provide research material (access) to Idaho prisoners. While it might seem oxymoronic that I am able to cite chapter and verse these authorities while complaining about the lack of access to the materials to do just that, this is the dilemma of filing such a case pro se - as, while I (personally) have some legal training, and have friends on the outside who will provide copies of cases or books as I might request, this is not the norm, as most prisoners have no such contacts or training. Whenever such a (research material access) case is filed by a pro se prisoner, the courts find that either the prisoner has access enough (to file/prosecute) the case, thus the claim is moot, or - most often - the case is dismissed for failure to cite authority, or on some procedural issue.
LACK OF IDAHO CODE BOOKS
Prisons of the IDOC do not maintain even a complete copy of Idaho Code (statutes) for use by prisoners. While attempting to justify the lack of nearly half the codified Idaho statutes available by reasoning that most prisoners wouldn't need to see the codes in preparing pre-printed forms to access the courts, the IDOC has taken the position that pre-printed forms that are provided for [initial complaints] provide all the access (to the courts) that is constitutionally required, and arguing that access to data necessary to the prosecution of an action (subsequent to a complaint, including an appeal) once initiated is not constitutionally required. Unfortunately, these forms, if available, are often inadequate, and in some cases, missing vital/requisite data which if not supplemented, may cause the action to be dismissed - with prejudice - by the courts.
An illustration of this issue involves the lack of access to Idaho Code, Title 39, Chapter 63 (Domestic Violence Crime Prevention). Many prisoners have been convicted of violating "protection" orders as described within this chapter, and many more, even while incarcerated, are still subject to terms and conditions described therein, yet the IDOC refuses to provide access to this state code to prisoners.
In a recent case, prisoner John Doe (name disclosed upon request) sought modification/enforcement of a child custody order authorizing visitation between himself and his child. Doe sent (served) a copy of the filing upon the designated contact [designated by the court in the custody order] for the mother of his biological child per Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 5 (C). In addition to being subjected to discliplinary action by the IDOC for violating a no-contact order (which was not even in effect at the time) due to a complaint directly to prison administrators by the mother, Mr. Doe found himself sitting in court fighting a motion for a protection order filed by his ex-wife (in favor of herself and the child). Even with this, the prisoner was denied access to the statutes by the state.
RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS
It is clear to most in the legal community that to make any determination as to whether or not a perceived claim is "warranted" a person must research that claim/issue, research whether or not there have been any rulings by any court on material facts which are the same or similar, determine whether or not the claim is cognizable, determine personal and subject matter jurisdiction of the court and present a cogent complaint, followed by [Shepardizing] and citing current authority. Failure to do these things can, and in the case of a pro se prisoner often will result in the dismissal of the complaint/action as [legally] frivolous.
Idaho Code 20-209E provides that a prisoner who has filed a "frivolous or malicious" claim in any state, federal or administrative court is subject to discliplinary detention and loss of privileges. "Frivolous", in this context, is defined as "Lacking a legal basis or legal merit". (Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Pocket Edition.) The IDOC also maintains a Standard Operating Procedure which makes such filings a discliplinary offense.
Idaho Code 12-117 (1) provides that a court may award witness, attorney and other fees to a party if the court determines that the "non-prevailing party acted without a reasonable basis in fact or law." I.C. 12-123 (b)(ii) defines frivolous conduct as [a case] which is "not supported by fact or warranted UNDER EXISTING LAW and cannot be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law." [EMPHASIS ADDED]. Even in a habeas corpus action, courts can award attorney fees to the state against a jail or state prisoner where, "even if the factual allegations were true, they did not, AS A MATTER OF LAW justify relief to the petitioner." (I.C. 12-122) [EMPHASIS ADDED]. The courts have noted under this section that such action may be deemed not frivolous when the action involves "a material issue of law that has not been settled by statute or by supreme court decision in this state." (id). Without available research materials however, it is nearly impossible for anyone to make these determinations before initiating or defending against any action in the courts.
Courts may also make a declaration that a prisoner is a "vexatious litigant" upon the filing of an action which "is not warranted under existing law", cannot be supported by a good faith argument for the modification or reversal of an existing law, and/or has commenced - pro se - three (3) or more actions which have been determined (adjudicated) adversely [to them] within a seven (7) year period. (Idaho Court Administrative Rule 59 et seq.). Claims/actions which do not meet the minimums set forth in Rule 12 of the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure (IRCP) or Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). Being declared a vexatious litigant, amongst other things, prevents a prisoner from filing a complaint without first paying an entire filing fee subject to exceptions whereby a judge must first review and approve such filing as well as to a myriad prefiling orders/restrictions imposed by a court.
Obviously, without access to legal research materials, it is difficult, if not impossible to make a prefiling determination that a claim is not "warranted under existing law"
AUTHORITY REQUIREMENTS
Idaho has a long history of denying claims simply for failure of a party to "cite authority" in a brief, complaint or other filing (see e.g. CALLENDERS, Inc. v. BECKMAN, 116 Idaho 857, 858, 780 P.2d 1115, 1116 (1989) - cited in ORDER DENYING RULE 59(e) MOTION, at page 4 in SHACKELFORD v. McKAY, ET AL., Ada County Case No. CV-OC-2016-5583 filed 10 August 2017).
Without access to these authority (i.e., research materials - case law), prisoners are prejudiced to the point where pro se litigation is both legally and practically worthless. Prisoners are stuck between the perverbial rock and a hard place in that prisoners who file an action / complaint on lack of a law library / research materials which have clearly been researched and adequately cite authority will have their cases dismissed as moot - while those who do not cite the authority as required will have the cases dismissed for failure to cite that authority.
Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 (et. seq.) allows - as an affirmative defense - a defendant to seek dismissal of an action / complaint on the grounds of lack of subject matter and/or personal jurisdiction and failure of the complaintant to state a claim upon which relief may be granted (IRCP/FRCP Rule 12(b)(1), (2) and (6) respectively). Without adequate research materials, pro se prisoners can rarely ascertain whether or not their complaint meets these minimum standards, thus even the act of filing what is thought to be a valid complaint with the court can subject a prisoner to many adverse effects, not including the dismissal of the suit and the cost(s) of filing and service of the action. The IDOC maintains Standard Operating Procedures for collecting judgments by the courts in these cases by not only attaching inmate trust accounts, but literally going into a prisoners cell and taking their personal property and belongings.
APPEALS
Even in instances where Idaho prisoners have a [state created] RIGHT to appeal ("An appeal as a matter of right may be taken to the Supreme Court from the following judgments and orders..." - Idaho Appellate Rule 11) courts are not required to appoint counsel to represent a prisoner on [that] appeal - even if the prisoner cannot afford counsel - and the appeal, if it is to happen, must be done pro se, usually with the assistance of a "jailhouse lawyer" (as we are often called).
In instances where courts appoint counsel on appeal as a matter of right (such as in a direct appeal from conviction), counsel often withdraws without due consideration of the facts or claims of the case, leaving the prisoner to proceed pro se if the appeal is to continue. In Idaho, there is no requirement that direct (or other) appeal counsel file a "merits brief" as required in some jurisdictions and described in ANDERS v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1969). Without the ability to conduct research, and/or cite legal authority, Idaho prisoners have virtually no options for [successfully] appealing their criminal convictions where overworked and overbooked attorneys, whether the State Appellate Public Defender's Office (SAPD) or conflict counsel simply don't want to deal with the type of case presented, or have the time/resources to research and round out the issues - and without need for an Anders brief, there is no one the wiser.
It is well established in Idaho law that an appellate court will not consider a claim of error that is not supported by both argument and citation to authority. STATE v. GARZIAN, 144 Idaho 510, 518, 164 P.3d 790, 798 (2007) (Garzian makes no citation to authority as required by Idaho Appellate Rule 35 (a)(6) and has not preserved the issue for appellate review) STATE v. DIAZ, 144 Idaho 300, 303, 160 P.3d 737, 742 (2007) (claim not preserved for appellate review where Diaz failed to present any argument or authority in his opening brief to support this contention) STATE v. ZICHKO, 129 Idaho 259, 263, 923 P.2d 966, 970 (1996) (when issues on appeal are not supported by propositions of law, authority, or argument, they will not be considered). These requirements for citing authority encompass both criminal (direct) and civil appeals in Idaho.
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, regarding the King of England (i.e., government): "HE has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable and, distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures." Removing the means by which a person may initiate, prosecute or appeal a case is the modern version of Jefferson's observations, and I would request any assistance in righting these issues that you might be willing to provide. Of course, I will work with your office by filing the requisite administrative grievances and exhausting any remedies that might be required.
The fact that even most county jails across the country, (even some in Idaho) provide prisoner access to legal research materials (usually through computer kiosks with LexisNexis accounts) the reasonable costs associated with this type of access (IDOC already has prisoner accessible kiosks in every facility) and the fact that all monies expended by the IDOC come directly from the Inmate Management Fund (not from taxpayer dollars) gives even more credence to the argument that the IDOC simply does not want prisoners to be able to successfully litigate actions either in behalf of themselves (criminal, post-conviction, habeas corpus, et al.) or against the department/state (civil rights, et al.). A well-constructed class action civil rights suit to require the research materials to be provided would likely result in a settlement that would benefit everyone involved, and provide access to the necessary materials to prisoners for decades to come.
Thank you for your consideration of this issue. Please let me know that you have received this email communication by replying to the email from which it was sent.
Respectfully yours,
/s/ Dale C. Shackelford
#64613 / ISCC / Unit F
P.O. Box 70010
Boise, ID 83707