Houck v. State

Idaho Court of Appeals

Houck v. State

706 P.2d 93, 109 Idaho 204, 1985 Ida. App. LEXIS 706

CourtIdaho Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 30, 1985

DocketNo. 15601

StatusPublished

This text of 706 P.2d 93 (Houck v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Houck v. State, 706 P.2d 93, 109 Idaho 204, 1985 Ida. App. LEXIS 706 (Idaho Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Leo Houck, a former inmate at the Idaho State Correctional Institution, brought this action against the State of Idaho and former members of the Commission of Pardons and Parole seeking monetary damages for alleged irregularities in proceedings concerning his parole. Houck mailed a copy of the complaint and summons to each defendant by registered mail, rather than having them served personally as required by I.R.C.P. 4(d)(1), (2) and (5). As permitted by I.R.C.P. 4(i) and 12(b)(2), defendants filed a motion to dismiss, asserting various defenses including “insufficiency of process and insufficiency of service of process.” Houck moved for entry of the defendants’ default because of their failure to answer the complaint within twenty days.

Following a hearing on these motions the district court denied Houck’s motion for default and issued an order dismissing the case without prejudice for failure to personally serve the summons and complaint as required by the rules cited above. The district court’s ruling was correct. Therefore, the order is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Leo Houck, a former inmate at the Idaho State Correctional Institution, brought this action against the State of Idaho and former members of the Commission of Pardons and Parole seeking monetary damages for alleged irregularities in proceedings concerning his parole. Houck mailed a copy of the complaint and summons to each defendant by registered mail, rather than having them served personally as required by I.R.C.P. 4(d)(1), (2) and (5). As permitted by I.R.C.P. 4(i) and 12(b)(2), defendants filed a motion to dismiss, asserting various defenses including “insufficiency of process and insufficiency of service of process.” Houck moved for entry of the defendants’ default because of their failure to answer the complaint within twenty days.

Following a hearing on these motions the district court denied Houck’s motion for default and issued an order dismissing the case without prejudice for failure to personally serve the summons and complaint as required by the rules cited above. The district court’s ruling was correct. Therefore, the order is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

706 P.2d 93, 109 Idaho 204, 1985 Ida. App. LEXIS 706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/houck-v-state-idahoctapp-1985.