Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 19-4209 (2026)

Procedures governing prisoner habeas corpus proceedings. 

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Procedures governing prisoner habeas corpus proceedings. 

(1) The court may dismiss with prejudice a petition for writ of habeas corpus under this section, in whole or in part, prior to service of the petition on the respondent, if the court finds:

(a)  The petition is frivolous as defined in section 12-122, Idaho Code;
(b)  The petition has been brought maliciously or solely to harass;
(c)  The petition fails to state a claim of constitutional violation upon which relief can be granted;
(d)  The alleged constitutional deprivation is de minimis in nature; or
(e)  The relief sought is monetary damages or the return of property.
(2)  If the court finds that the petition should not be dismissed, then:
(a)  The court shall mail a copy of the petition and order of response to the respondent or the respondent’s counsel, if known;
(b)  A response must be filed within thirty (30) days from the date the respondent or the respondent’s counsel is served with the petition and order for response. If the court finds that exigent circumstances exist which warrant an earlier response, the court shall set forth those circumstances and the allowed time for response; and
(c)  If the court dismisses the petition in part, the court may specify which issues and/or allegations remain at issue for response.
(3)  If the court orders a response to a petition for writ of habeas corpus under this section, the respondent may file any responsive motion or pleading allowed by Idaho rules of civil procedure.
(4)  Upon the filing of a responsive motion or pleading, a prisoner may file a reply to the response or the court may order a reply to the response on its own motion. The court should consider any reply filed only to the extent it is relevant to the issues and allegations raised in the original petition for writ of habeas corpus.
(5)  With respect to a petition filed by an in-state prisoner the court should not grant a writ of habeas corpus or order an evidentiary hearing under this section unless, after reviewing the petition for writ of habeas corpus, the response and the reply, if any, the court finds that the prisoner’s state or federal constitutional rights may have been violated relative to:
(a)  Conditions of confinement;
(b)  Revocation of parole;
(c)  Miscalculation of his sentence;
(d)  Loss of good time credits; or
(e)  A detainer lodged against him.
If, after review under this subsection, the court finds that the allegations do not state a state or federal constitutional claim, the court may dismiss the petition without a hearing.
(6)  With respect to a petition filed by an out-of-state prisoner, the court should not grant a writ of habeas corpus or order an evidentiary hearing under this section unless, after reviewing the petition for writ of habeas corpus, the response and the reply, if any, the court finds that the out-of-state prisoner’s state or federal constitutional rights may have been violated relative to the out-of-state prisoner’s conditions of confinement. If, after review under this subsection, the court finds that the allegations do not state a state or federal constitutional claim, the court may dismiss the petition without a hearing.
(7)  If the court issues a writ of habeas corpus and sets the matter for evidentiary hearing, the following shall apply:
(a)  The hearing shall be set as expeditiously as possible and may be at a place convenient for the court and the parties, including the institution or the state, local or private correctional facility where the prisoner is confined;
(b)  The burden of proof during an evidentiary hearing pursuant to a petition for writ of habeas corpus lies with the prisoner; and
(c)  As soon as possible after the conclusion of the hearing, the court shall enter its findings of fact and conclusions of law, and either dismiss the petition in part or in its entirety, or grant injunctive relief consistent with this act.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2002–2024 · leading case: Hoots v. Craven, 192 P.3d 1095 (Idaho Ct. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hoots v. Craven, 192 P.3d 1095 (Idaho Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 6× “Idaho Code Section 19-4209 states in relevant part: Procedures governing prisoner habeas corpus proceedings — (1) The court may dismiss with prejudice a petition for writ of habeas corpus under this section, in whole or in part, prior to service of the petition on the…”
Gibson v. Bennett, 108 P.3d 417 (Idaho Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “Gibson also argues that the district court was estopped from granting Bennett’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion because the district court did not sua sponte dismiss Gibson's habeas corpus petition pursuant to I.C. § 19-4209(1). Gibson's contention that the district court’s failure to sua…”
State v. Parrott, 57 P.3d 509 (Idaho Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “Additionally, the district court denied Parrott’s motion to amend the motion into a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Idaho Code Section 19-4209(5) provides: With respect to a petition filed by an instate prisoner the court should not grant a writ of habeas, corpus unless .”
Michael A. Dotts v. Warden Little (Idaho Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 8× “Dotts also contended that the “combined force and effects of Idaho Code 20-210 and Idaho Code 20-228” violate the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Williams v. Hollinshead (Idaho 2020). · cites it 4× “” Under Idaho Code section 19-4209, a court should consider arguments “only to the extent [they are] relevant to the issues and allegations raised in the original petition for writ of habeas corpus.”
Williams v. Hollinshead (Idaho 2020). · cites it 4× “” Under Idaho Code section 19-4209, a court should consider arguments “only to the extent [they are] relevant to the issues and allegations raised in the original petition for writ of habeas corpus.”
Creech v. Randy Valley (Idaho 2024). · cites it 4× “]” I.C. § 19-4209(1)(c). The decision whether to issue a writ of habeas corpus is a matter of discretion.”
Creech v. Randy Valley, 560 P.3d 1000 (Idaho 2024). · cites it 4× “]” I.C. § 19-4209(1)(c). The decision whether to issue a writ of habeas corpus is a matter of discretion.”
Neil Patterson v. Pam Sonnen (Idaho Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “He further claims that prosecution under an Information from the prosecutor is unconstitutional. Patterson asks for discharge and expungement of his conviction and unspecified compensation.”
Floyd v. Idaho State Parole Comm'n (Idaho Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “See I.C. § 19-4209(1). The magistrate court concluded Floyd failed to state a constitutional violation upon which relief could be granted.”
Steven T. Thompson v. Johanna Smith (Idaho Ct. App. 2012). “1 § 19-4209, prior to service on the respondents because the petition failed to state a claim of constitutional violation upon which relief could be granted.”
— Idaho Code § 19-4209(1) — 3 cases
Gibson v. Bennett, 108 P.3d 417 (Idaho Ct. App. 2005). “Gibson also argues that the district court was estopped from granting Bennett’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion because the district court did not sua sponte dismiss Gibson's habeas corpus petition pursuant to I.C. § 19-4209(1). Gibson's contention that the district court’s failure to sua…”
Floyd v. Idaho State Parole Comm'n (Idaho Ct. App. 2023). “See I.C. § 19-4209(1). The magistrate court concluded Floyd failed to state a constitutional violation upon which relief could be granted.”
Neil Patterson v. Pam Sonnen (Idaho Ct. App. 2012). “He further claims that prosecution under an Information from the prosecutor is unconstitutional. Patterson asks for discharge and expungement of his conviction and unspecified compensation.”
— Idaho Code § 19-4209(1)(c) — 3 cases
Creech v. Randy Valley (Idaho 2024). “]” I.C. § 19-4209(1)(c). The decision whether to issue a writ of habeas corpus is a matter of discretion.”
Michael A. Dotts v. Warden Little (Idaho Ct. App. 2014). “Dotts also contended that the “combined force and effects of Idaho Code 20-210 and Idaho Code 20-228” violate the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Creech v. Randy Valley, 560 P.3d 1000 (Idaho 2024). “]” I.C. § 19-4209(1)(c). The decision whether to issue a writ of habeas corpus is a matter of discretion.”
— Idaho Code § 19-4209(4) — 2 cases
Williams v. Hollinshead (Idaho 2020). “” Under Idaho Code section 19-4209, a court should consider arguments “only to the extent [they are] relevant to the issues and allegations raised in the original petition for writ of habeas corpus.”
Williams v. Hollinshead (Idaho 2020). “” Under Idaho Code section 19-4209, a court should consider arguments “only to the extent [they are] relevant to the issues and allegations raised in the original petition for writ of habeas corpus.”
— Idaho Code § 19-4209(5) — 1 case
State v. Parrott, 57 P.3d 509 (Idaho Ct. App. 2002). “Additionally, the district court denied Parrott’s motion to amend the motion into a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Idaho Code Section 19-4209(5) provides: With respect to a petition filed by an instate prisoner the court should not grant a writ of habeas, corpus unless .”
— Idaho Code § 19-4209(l)(e) — 1 case
Hoots v. Craven, 192 P.3d 1095 (Idaho Ct. App. 2008). “Idaho Code Section 19-4209 states in relevant part: Procedures governing prisoner habeas corpus proceedings — (1) The court may dismiss with prejudice a petition for writ of habeas corpus under this section, in whole or in part, prior to service of the petition on the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.