Estay, et al. v. Teton County Sheriff's Department, et al.

MEMORANDUM D ECISION AND ORDER - 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
PETER J. ESTAY, an individual,
STEPHANIE S. ESTAY, an individual,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TETON COUNTY SHERIFF, TETON
COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT,
Sergeant C. BERRY, individually and
in his official capacity as a deputy of
Teton County Sheriff Department,
Deputy H. MAJORS, individually and
in his officially capacity as a deputy of
the Teton County Sheriff Department,
Deputy E. WARN, individually and in
his official capacity as a deputy of
Teton County Sheriff Department,
Deputy BEN GUIMONT, individually
and in his official capacity as a deputy
of Teton County Sheriff Department,
CLINT LEMIEUX, individually and in
his official capacity as the Sheriff of
Teton County Idaho, and JOHN/JANE
DOES 1-10, individually and in their
official capacities,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:25-cv-00716-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is a Motion to Set Reasonable Bond (Dkt. 3). For the
reasons explained below, the Court will grant the motion and set a bond in the
Case 1:25-cv-00716-BLW-REP Document 7 Filed 01/02/26 Page 1 of 5

MEMORANDUM D ECISION AND ORDER - 2
amount of $500.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs intend to sue multiple law enforcement officers of the Teton
County Sheriff Department—Sergeant C. Berry, Deputy H. Majors, Deputy E.
Warn, and Deputy Ben Guimont—along with Sheriff Clint Lemieux, the Teton
County Sheriff Department, and John/Jane Does 1-10. Plaintiffs allege that these
defendants violated their constitutional rights by unlawfully entering their
property, forcibly removing them from their residence at 1112 Ski Hill Road,
Driggs, Idaho, and arresting them.
In their complaint, Plaintiffs allege three federal claims under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 for alleged violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The sole state-
law claim is an inverse condemnation claim alleging a taking without just
compensation under Article I, Section 14 of the Idaho Constitution. Plaintiffs ask
the Court to fix the amount and form of a bond required under Idaho Code § 6-610.
DISCUSSION
Under Idaho Code § 6-610(2), a plaintiff who intends to sue a law
enforcement officer for actions arising out of the performance of the officer’s
duties must, as a condition precedent to filing the complaint, post a written
undertaking with at least two sufficient sureties in an amount to be fixed by the
Case 1:25-cv-00716-BLW-REP Document 7 Filed 01/02/26 Page 2 of 5

MEMORANDUM D ECISION AND ORDER - 3
court. The statute’s purpose is twofold: to ensure that the plaintiff diligently
pursues the lawsuit, and to serve as a fund for costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees
in the event the plaintiff loses. See Idaho Code § 6-610(2). This requirement
applies to “all suits against law enforcement officers whether they are brought in
tort or as other civil claims.” Beehler v. Fremont County, 182 P.3d 713, 718 (Idaho
Ct. App. 2008).
The bond requirement does not apply to Plaintiffs’ federal claims brought
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Urrizaga v. Twin Falls Cty., 106 Fed.Appx. 546, 549
n. 2 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Hyde v. Fisher, 152 P.3d 653, 658 (Idaho Ct. App.
2007) (holding the security requirement of section 6-610 is preempted by federal
law). But the bond requirement presumably applies to Plaintiffs’ state law claim
for inverse condemnation under Article I, Section 14 of the Idaho Constitution.
Beehler, 182 P.3d at 718. The Court must therefore determine the amount of the
bond.
Plaintiffs request that the Court waive the bond requirement entirely or set a
nominal bond of no more than $500. In support, Peter Estay has submitted a
declaration asserting that he owns real property but has limited means, and that
requiring a significant bond would deprive him of his due process right to access
the courts.
Case 1:25-cv-00716-BLW-REP Document 7 Filed 01/02/26 Page 3 of 5

MEMORANDUM D ECISION AND ORDER - 4
A court may waive costs, fees, and security for indigents if (1) the party
requesting a waiver files an affidavit stating that he is indigent and unable to pay
the costs, fees, and security associated with his case, and (2) the court finds, after
informal inquiry, that the party is indigent for the purpose of prepayment of fees,
costs, or security. Idaho Code § 31-220(2)(a), (b). I.C. § 31-3220. This statute
applies to bonds required under § 6-610. Clements v. Pocatello Police Dep’t, No.
4:22-CV-00407-DCN, 2023 WL 2354894, at *1 (D. Idaho Mar. 2, 2023). Estay’s
declaration establish he is financially strapped but, with some diligence, he can
afford to pay a small bond. See Clements, 2023 WL 2354894, at *2. Accordingly,
the Court sets the bond at $500.
In setting a small bond in this matter, the Court considered the unusual
nature of the state law claim at issue here – inverse condemnation. The Court
cannot recall a time when such a claim was brought against law enforcement
officers. So, it is at least possible, that the bond requirement of Idaho Code § 6-
610 does not apply to the Plaintiff’s claim. The named defendants can, of course,
object to the bond amount – in which case, the Court will be able to make a
determination as to the statute’s applicability, as well as to the bond’s adequacy.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Set Reasonable Bond (Dkt. 3)
Case 1:25-cv-00716-BLW-REP Document 7 Filed 01/02/26 Page 4 of 5

MEMORANDUM D ECISION AND ORDER - 5
is GRANTED.
1. The bond is set at $500. Plaintiffs shall file a written undertaking with at
least two sufficient sureties in that amount as a condition precedent to filing
the complaint as to the inverse condemnation claim under Article I, Section
14 of the Idaho Constitution.
2. Plaintiffs’ federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are not subject to the bond
requirement and may be filed without posting a bond.
Case 1:25-cv-00716-BLW-REP Document 7 Filed 01/02/26 Page 5 of 5