Crosby v. State of Idaho

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:25-cv-00671-AKB
Document 5 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
NICOLE CROSBY,
Plaintiff,
VS.
STATE OF IDAHO,
Defendant.
Case No. 1:25-cv-00671-AKB
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a complaint to "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."" Ashcroft v. Iqbal 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). In addition, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)1 requires the Court to screen all non-prisoner pauper complaints to determine whether they have stated a claim upon which relief can be granted before any complaint is served on the defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Court must dismiss any claims that are frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Pro se Plaintiff Nicole Crosby has filed a complaint against the State of Idaho, which appears to be aimed at Gooding County prosecutor Trevor Misseldine, arising from Gooding County criminal case, CR24-20-01020. Dkt. 2 at 1. She also states that an "officer federal made
1 Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, et seq.
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 1
AUTHENTICATED U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION GPO

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 2
sexual remarks at me and Brooke Mauger pushed me”—both of which appear to have occurred
during the Gooding County criminal proceedings. Dkt. 2 at 4. The criminal case referenced in the
complaint was dismissed by motion of the prosecutor, with the order entered on April 13, 2021.
See Attached Exhibit. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed without
prejudice, with leave to amend to correct the deficiencies set forth herein.
REVIEW OF COMPLAINT
1. Statute of Limitations
The statute of limitations period for filing a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is
determined by the statute of limitations period for personal injuries in the state where the claim
arose. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985) (later overruled only as to claims brought under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, not applicable here). Idaho Code § 5-219 provides for a two-
year statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Federal civil rights actions arising in Idaho
are governed by this two-year statute of limitations.
Although the Court relies upon the state statute of limitations to determine the time for
filing a claim, the Court uses federal law to determine when a claim accrues. Elliott v. City of
Union City, 25 F.3d 800, 801-02 (9th Cir. 1994). The Ninth Circuit has determined that a claim
accrues when the plaintiff knows, or should know, of the injury that is the basis of the cause of
action. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1128 (9th Cir. 1996). Under this “discovery rule,” the
statute begins to run once a plaintiff knows of his injury and its cause. Gibson v. United States,
781 F.2d 1334, 1344 (9th Cir. 1986). The statute of limitations for a § 1983 claim that is dependent
upon a prior state court action to invalidate a conviction does not begin to run until the state court
action is dismissed in the defendant’s favor, because the § 1983 cause of action does not arise until
a state court action is completed. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 489 (1994).
Case 1:25-cv-00671-AKB Document 5 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 6

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 3
Here, Plaintiff’s claims all arise from a criminal action in state court that was dismissed in
2021. That means Plaintiff had two years from the date of dismissal (until 2023), to file a federal
civil rights claim against the prosecutor, the federal officer involved in the criminal case, and the
alleged state actor who pushed her in the course of the criminal proceedings. It is clear (1) that
Plaintiff knew about the alleged civil rights violations at the time of the dismissal and (2) that she
knew her injuries at that time.
If claims are untimely filed, they are deemed frivolous and can be dismissed sua sponte
after notice to the plaintiff. See Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1229–30 (9th Cir. 1984) (a
case filed outside the statute of limitations period is legally frivolous); Puett v. Carnes, 21 F.3d
1115 (9th Cir. 1994) (unpubl.) (same); Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252, 1258 (10th Cir. 2006)
(same).
Before dismissing the claims, the Court will provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to show
that the statute of limitations started on a different date, or that she is entitled to equitable tolling
or estoppel. Otherwise, the claims are untimely and subject to dismissal with prejudice.
2. Improper Defendant
Only the State of Idaho is named as a defendant. The State of Idaho generally is protected
from suit in federal court because the Eleventh Amendment provides “sovereign immunity” to
states. A state cannot be sued in federal court except in two instances (1) where the state has
expressly waived its sovereign immunity, see Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 16-18 (1890); or
(2) where Congress acted under a valid grant of constitutional authority and specifically intended
to abrogate state sovereign immunity. See Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 73 (2000).
The State of Idaho has not waived sovereign immunity for § 1983 suits in federal court,
and Congress has not abrogated state sovereign immunity for such suits. The Eleventh
Case 1:25-cv-00671-AKB Document 5 Filed 01/12/26 Page 3 of 6

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 4
Amendment’s jurisdictional bar applies to states “regardless of the nature of the relief sought.” See
Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984).
Moreover, only a “person” is amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and a state is not
considered a “person” under that statute. Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71
(1989). Plaintiff cannot proceed against the State of Idaho and should omit this Defendant in any
amended complaint.
3. Insufficient Factual Support
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege a violation of rights
protected by the Constitution or created by federal statute proximately caused by conduct of a
person acting under color of state law. Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991).
If any actor is allegedly a federal actor, the pleading must contain sufficient allegations to support
the allegation under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971), the federal civil rights counterpart to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff has stated no claim upon which she can proceed with her vague allegations. A pro
se litigant bringing a civil rights suit must have an opportunity to amend the complaint to overcome
deficiencies unless it is clear that they cannot be overcome by amendment. See Lopez v. Smith,
203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000). She will be given leave to file an amended complaint.
4. Instructions for Amendment
Any amended complaint must contain all of Plaintiff’s allegations in a single pleading and
cannot rely upon or incorporate by reference prior pleadings. Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 15.1. An
amended pleading completely replaces an original pleading. Any amended complaint must show
her claims are timely, name a proper defendant, provide sufficient facts to support her claim, and
omit the State of Idaho as a defendant.
Case 1:25-cv-00671-AKB Document 5 Filed 01/12/26 Page 4 of 6

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 5
A pleading is more understandable if it is organized by claim for relief and defendant,
rather than asserting a broad set of facts at the beginning of a pleading that are unrelated to a list
of defendants elsewhere in the pleading. An amended complaint must state the “who, what, where,
when, why, and how” of each claim.
In particular, for each claim against each defendant, Plaintiff must state the following
(organized by each defendant): (1) the name of the person or entity Plaintiff claims to have caused
the alleged deprivation of his constitutional rights; (2) the facts showing that the defendant is a
state or federal actor (such as state or federal employment) or a private entity/private individual
acting under color of law; (3) the dates on which the conduct of the defendant allegedly took place;
(4) the specific conduct or action Plaintiff alleges is unconstitutional; (5) the particular provision
of the Constitution Plaintiff alleges has been violated; (6) facts alleging that the elements of the
violation are met; (7) the injury or damages Plaintiff personally suffered; and (8) the particular
type of relief he is seeking from each defendant.
The amended complaint must be legibly written or typed, and it should be clearly
designated as an “Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff must leave a one-inch margin around all edges
of any complaint to allow for proper electronic scanning. Plaintiff’s name and address should be
clearly printed at the top left corner of the first page of each document filed with the Clerk of
Court.
If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, she must also file a “Motion to Review the
Amended Complaint.” If Plaintiff fails to file anything further in this matter, her amended
complaint will be dismissed with prejudice.
Case 1:25-cv-00671-AKB Document 5 Filed 01/12/26 Page 5 of 6

Case 1:25-cv-00671-AKB Document 5 Filed 01/12/26 Page 6 of 6
REVIEW OF IN FORMA PAUPERIS REQUEST
Plaintiff has filed an in forma pauperis application asserting that she has $45,000 in cash or in a checking or savings account. She also owns "stones, writings, lands, [and] houses." Dkt. 1 at 2. Accordingly, she can afford to pay the filing fee.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff must file a motion to amend and an amended complaint within 21 days after entry of this Order. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this case with prejudice.
2. Plaintiff's In Forma Pauperis Application (Dkt. 1) is DENIED. Within 21 days after entry of this Order, Plaintiff must pay the filing fee of $405.00 to the Clerk of Court. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this case, even if an amended complaint is filed.
UNITEL
OURTS
HO
DISTRICT OF ID
DATED: January 12, 2026 amanda. Brailsford
Amanda K. Brailsford U.S. District Court Judge
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 6