John Edwards v. Joshua Mills
Background
- John Edwards repeatedly engaged in disruptive and dangerous conduct in Caldwell city parks (interfering with animal control trapping and dangerous driving).
- The city’s recreation superintendent served a written trespass notice under Idaho Code § 18-7008(A)(8) barring Edwards from city parks.
- Caldwell city prosecutor Joshua Mills sent Edwards a letter explaining the basis for the trespass notice.
- Edwards sued Mills (captioned as a “Restraint Order of Notice of No Trespass”), alleging due process violations.
- The district court granted Mills’s Idaho R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion, dismissing Edwards’s complaint with prejudice and awarding fees and costs to Mills.
- Edwards appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed and awarded fees and costs to Mills on appeal; Edwards’s request for fees (as a pro se litigant) was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sending the explanatory letter and trespass notice violated due process | Edwards: the notice was invalid; he did nothing wrong and was denied due process | Mills: notice was lawful under § 18-7008(A)(8); letter was a permissible explanation and did not deprive any protected interest | Court: No due process violation; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Edwards had a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest | Edwards: impliedly claims denial of constitutional rights | Mills: Edwards’s conduct was nonexpressive; no protected liberty/property interest implicated | Court: No protected interest identified; First Amendment not implicated because conduct was nonexpressive |
| Whether Idaho Code § 18-7008(A)(8) applies to public parks and requires justification | Edwards: public parks are open; notice unjustified | Mills: statute applies to public and private property and does not require justification | Court: Statute applies to public property and does not require justification; Mills’s explanation irrelevant to validity of notice |
| Whether appeal and district-court posture justify attorney fees | Edwards: sought fees on appeal (late, and pro se) | Mills: appeal was frivolous/unfounded; seeks fees under Idaho law | Court: Fees awarded to Mills; Edwards’s fee request denied because not timely raised and pro se attorney not entitled to fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Coghlan v. Beta Theta Pi Fraternity, 133 Idaho 388, 987 P.2d 300 (discussing standard of review on Rule 12(b)(6))
- Orthman v. Idaho Power Co., 126 Idaho 960, 895 P.2d 561 (plaintiff entitled to all inferences on dismissal review)
- State v. Korsen, 138 Idaho 706, 69 P.3d 126 (§ 18-7008 applies to public and private property)
- Pentico v. State, 159 Idaho 350, 360 P.3d 359 (trespass after notice is nonexpressive conduct; First Amendment not implicated)
- Schevers v. State, 129 Idaho 573, 930 P.2d 603 (two-step due process analysis: protected interest then procedures)
- United Mine Workers v. Illinois State Bar Ass’n, 389 U.S. 217 (right to petition is a First Amendment–related liberty interest)
- Myers v. Workmen’s Auto Ins. Co., 140 Idaho 495, 95 P.3d 977 (issues and authorities must appear in opening brief)
- Chavez v. Canyon County, 152 Idaho 297, 271 P.3d 695 (pro se attorney not entitled to attorney fees)
- Crowley v. Critchfield, 145 Idaho 509, 181 P.3d 435 (standards for awarding appellate attorney fees)