Ullrich v. Idaho Board of Corrections et al

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
STEPHEN FLOYD ULLRICH,
Plaintiff,
vs.
IDAHO BOARD OF CORRECTION, et
al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:25-cv-00740-AKB
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
BY SCREENING JUDGE
Plaintiff Stephen Ullrich has filed a prisoner civil rights lawsuit that is subject to the
screening provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915. He complains generally that, from March 18, 1999,
to the present date, prison officials have abused, neglected, or exploited him as a disabled
individual. (Dkt. 3 at 6). He asserts he should be housed not in a prison in dormitory-style
conditions, but in a mental hospital. (Id. at 7, 12; Dkt. 3-1 at 18, 38). He asserts various Americans
with Disabilities Act claims, such as not being provided with reasonable notice of programs and
activities that are accessible to him as a disabled person. (Id. at 10). He also asserts that the prison
has an inadequate law library and provides inmates with complaint forms, but no legal help.
(Dkts. 3-1 at 6-7, 26-27).
1. Three Strikes Analysis
Plaintiff previously filed three actions that were deemed frivolous or malicious or that
failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Hence, he has been issued three strikes
under 28 U.S.C. §1915(g) for those actions: Ullrich v. Idaho, Case no. 1:08-cv-00076-BLW
Case 1:25-cv-00740-AKB Document 10 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 5

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 2
(Dkt. 7, 8) (noting that, as of 2008, Plaintiff “had filed at least twenty-six (26) civil lawsuits in the
District of Idaho involving the same allegations arising out of his criminal conviction and alleged
civil rights violations, and he has failed to prevail in any of them” and “[i]t is obvious from the
number of complaints Plaintiff has filed while in the custody of the IDOC that he is unwilling to
follow the Court’s directives about filing repetitive lawsuits, and he is now flagrantly violating the
Court’s orders”); Ullrich v. Canyon County, Case no. 1:06-cv-00320-EJL (Dkts. 10, 11); and
Ullrich v. Prior, Case No. 1:06-cv-00500-EJL (Dkt. 13, 14). Petitioner’s repetitive filings have
also prompted issuance of a pre-filing review Order in Case no. 17-80090 in the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals.
When a prisoner has accumulated three strikes, he is required to pay the filing fee of $405,
because he is not permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. An exception exists for prisoners whose
pleadings show that they are “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). Plaintiff is familiar with this requirement, as he has been given this warning in other
cases he has filed in federal court, such as Ullrich v. Idaho Supreme Court, Case no. 1:15-cv-
00220-CWD; and Ullrich v. Idaho State, Case no. 1:15-cv-00119-EJL.
Plaintiff cannot proceed with a civil rights action as a pauper unless he shows he is in
imminent danger of serious physical injury. Knowing this standard, Plaintiff alleges, “I am in
imminent danger of more general, and irreparable harm.” Id. at 11. He further states that he has
suffered a physical and psychological injury from “security, noise, sanitation, [and] exacerbated
medical-psychological conditions.” Dkt. 3-1 at 40. These vague statements are insufficient to show
he is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury. Plaintiff has not alleged that he does not have
access to regular psychological care as a medical necessity, but instead focuses on the lack of
Case 1:25-cv-00740-AKB Document 10 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 5

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 3
prison resources for disabled individuals in general and his lack of adequate legal resources to
continue to file complaints and petitions.
It is clear that the Complaint centers on Plaintiff’s inability to secure a transfer to a mental
hospital, like several other complaints he has filed, authored, or contributed to: Ullrich v. Idaho
State Legislature, Case no. 1:16-cv-00551-CWD; Knight v. Idaho Board of Correction, Case
no. 1:16-cv-00358-REB; Paxton v. State of Idaho, Case no. 1:16-cv-00138-REB; and Ullrich v.
Otter, Case no. 1:17-cv-00026-CWD.
Because Plaintiff has three strikes and has not met the exception to proceed with a civil
rights action as a pauper, he must pay the filing fee of $405 if he desires to proceed.
2. Pre-Filing Review – Litigation Management Order Analysis
In addition, Plaintiff is subject to a pre-filing review order issued in Case no. 1:20-cv-
00035-DCN, Ullrich v. Idaho State Courts (Case 35), which is intended to curb Plaintiff Stephen
Ullrich’s frivolous and repetitive filings. (Case 35, Dkt. 2). According to the “Litigation
Management Order “in Case 35, before filing a complaint Plaintiff is required to file a “Request
for Authorization for Filing” of no more than three pages that must state all of the following: the
federal legal basis for the cause of action Plaintiff desires to bring, the defendants Plaintiff desires
to sue, the facts supporting the cause of action, and the reason why it meets the “imminent danger
of serious physical injury” requirement of 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(g). (Id.). Plaintiff has violated that
Order by filing a 15-page Complaint with 29 exhibits and a 10-page “Petition for Permission.”
Plaintiff was specifically ordered not to file any more “Petitions for Permission” that would be
docketed as new cases, but to file any new “Authorization for Filing” in Case 35. Petitioner has
also violated that provision of the Order.
Case 1:25-cv-00740-AKB Document 10 Filed 01/12/26 Page 3 of 5

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 4
The Litigation Management Order specifically provides:
Any new claims that meet the § 1915(g) standard must not be mixed
together with claims addressing his state criminal conviction and
sentence (including failure to place him in a mental health facility);
claims based on the closed Balla class action; claims related to the
Idaho statutes governing insanity; claims arising from the Idaho
statutes governing placement in prison or a mental health facility;
claims grounded in pre-Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996), case
law addressing prisoner access to the courts; claims based on
dissenting opinions he believes are relevant to his state criminal
conviction and sentence (including nonplacement in a mental health
facility); and similar claims or issues the federal courts have already
rejected.
(Case 35, Dkt. 2 at 8). Plaintiff’s new Complaint transgresses most of these provisions.
Plaintiff was clearly instructed how to bring “imminent danger” lawsuits in the Litigation
Management Order in Case 35, so that he was not left without a remedy for serious harms. Because
Plaintiff has failed to articulate sufficient facts to proceed under the exception to the three strikes
rule and because Plaintiff has not complied with the Litigation Management Order in Case 35, this
case will be dismissed.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 1) is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for an Expert Opinion (Dkt. 4) is DENIED.
3. Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order of Pre-Disclosure (Dkt. 5) is DENIED.
4. Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. 6) is DENIED.
5. Plaintiff’s Petition for Permission (Dkt. 3-2) is DENIED.
6. Plaintiff’s Motion to Clarify (Dkt. 9) is DENIED.
7. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for the reasons set forth above.
Case 1:25-cv-00740-AKB Document 10 Filed 01/12/26 Page 4 of 5

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 5
8. A pre-filing review Order was issued in Case no. 17-80090 in the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. For purposes of appeal, the Court finds this case frivolous, as it is an attempt to
contest the same issues that have already been litigated to a conclusion in federal habeas
corpus and civil rights cases, and it fails to comply with the Litigation Management Order
issued in Case 35.
DATED: January 12, 2026
_________________________
Amanda K. Brailsford
U.S. District Court Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00740-AKB Document 10 Filed 01/12/26 Page 5 of 5