Neuman v. Iowa
| Decision Date | 10 November 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 16-CV-2054-LRR,16-CV-2054-LRR |
| Parties | JAMES NEUMAN, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF IOWA et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
I. INTRODUCTION ....................................... 2
II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY ........................ 2
III. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND ....................... 4
A. Parties .......................................... 4
B. Overview of the Dispute .............................. 4
C. Neuman I ....................................... 5
IV. ANALYSIS ........................................... 6
A. The Three-Judge Panel Motion ......................... 6
B. The Motions to Dismiss ............................... 7
C. Supplemental Jurisdiction ............................ 18
V. CONCLUSION ....................................... 18
The matters before the court are Defendant Officer Cassidy Dietz's "Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to State a Claim and Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction" ("Dietz Motion") (docket no. 29); Defendants Black Hawk County, Iowa, Black Hawk County Courthouse, Black Hawk County Attorney Office, District Attorney Thomas J. Ferguson, Emily Zerkel, Black Hawk County Attorney, Brian Williams, Black Hawk County Attorney and Jeremy Westendorf, Black Hawk County Attorney's (collectively, "County Defendants") "Motion to Dismiss by Black Hawk County Defendants and Request for Order" ("County Defendants' Motion") (docket no. 31); Defendants Roberts, Stevens, Prendergast & Guthrie, PPLC, Carter Stevens and Carolyn Inman's (collectively, "Private Defendants") "Motion to Dismiss" ("Private Defendants' Motion") (docket no. 33); Defendants State of Iowa, Chief Judge M. Kellyann Lekar, Judge Joel A. Dalrymple, Judge Joseph M. Moothart and Judge Nathan Callahan's (collectively, "State Defendants") "Motion to Dismiss" ("State Defendants' Motion") (docket no. 37); Plaintiff James Neuman's pro se "Motion to Agree to Discovery"(docket no. 45); Neuman's pro se "Motion for ECF" (docket no. 47); Neuman's pro se "Motion to Proceed in [F]ront of Chief Judge Linda Reade" (docket no. 48) and Neuman's pro se "Motion for a Panel of Judges to [M]ake [R]uling on Defendants (sic) Motion to Dismiss" ("Three-Judge Panel Motion") (docket no. 49) (collectively, "Motions").
On May 25, 2016, Neuman filed a pro se Complaint (docket no. 1). In the Complaint, Neuman asserts thirty-nine claims against seventeen named Defendants. The claims range from common law claims arising under Iowa law to federal constitutional violations. All of the claims stem from Neuman's conviction in the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County ("Iowa District Court") for violation of Iowa Code § 321J.2, operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated ("State Case"). See State v. Neuman, No.OWCR196436 (Black Hawk Cty. Dist. Ct. 2014). The claims are nearly identical in nature to those asserted in a previous case before this court. See Neuman v. State of Iowa et al., No. 15-CV-2037-LRR (N.D. Iowa 2015) ("Neuman I").
On August 5, 2016, Dietz filed the Dietz Motion, the County Defendants filed the County Defendants' Motion and the Private Defendants filed the Private Defendants' Motion. On August 8, 2016, the State Defendants filed the State Defendants' Motion. On August 25, 2016, Neuman filed the Motion to Agree to Discovery, Motion for ECF, Motion to Proceed in Front of Chief Judge Linda Reade and the Three-Judge Panel Motion. On August 31, 2016, the County Defendants filed a resistance ("County Defendants' Resistance") (docket no. 50) and Dietz filed a resistance ("Dietz Resistance") (docket no. 51) to Neuman's various motions. On September 1, 2016, the State Defendants filed a resistance ("State Defendants' Resistance") (docket no. 52) to Neuman's various motions. On September 8, 2016, the Private Defendants filed a response ("Private Defendants' Response") (docket no. 55), in which they join the County Defendants, Dietz and the State Defendants in their resistances to Neuman's various motions that are addressed in this Order.
On September 13, 2016, the court entered an Order authorizing Neuman to file a resistance to the Private Defendants' Motion and stating that such resistance may not exceed twenty pages in length. See Sept. 13, 2016 Order (docket no. 56) at 4. On October 3, 2016, Neuman filed a pro se Resistance ("First Neuman Resistance"). On October 11, 2016, the court struck the Resistance for being untimely, overbroad and overlength, in direct contravention of the court's September 13, 2016 Order. See Oct. 11, 2016 Order (docket no. 62) at 2. Therefore, the court shall not consider the First Neuman Resistance when ruling on the Motions to Dismiss.1 Also on October 11, 2016, DefendantCity of Evansdale filed a Joinder (docket no. 63), joining in the Dietz Motion and the Dietz Resistance. On November 4, 2016, Neuman filed a second pro se Resistance ("Second Neuman Resistance") (docket no. 67), complying with the court's September 13, 2016 Order and responding solely to the Private Defendants' Motion. Though the Second Neuman Resistance is untimely, the court shall consider it. No party has requested oral arguments on any of the Motions and the court finds that oral arguments are unnecessary. The Motions are fully submitted and ready for decision.
Plaintiff James Neuman is an individual residing in Waterloo, Iowa. Defendants represent a variety of parties involved in the State Case. Defendants are: Dietz, the City of Evansdale, the County Defendants, the Private Defendants and the State Defendants.
The circumstances underlying the instant action mirror those of Neuman I and are fully set out in the court's October 9, 2015 Order in Neuman I. See Neuman I, docket no. 46, at 4-6. However, the court shall provide an abbreviated version of the facts here.
This action arises out of alleged irregularities in the State Case, wherein Neuman was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, in violation of Iowa Code § 321J.2. In February of 2014, Dietz arrested Neuman on suspicion that Neuman was operating a vehicle while intoxicated. At the time of his arrest, Neuman made multiple requests to contact Judge Dalrymple, but Dietz would not allow him to call Judge Dalrymple. Neuman alleges that he consented to a breathalyzer test but that Dietz recorded that Neuman refused to take the test.
Following his arrest, Neuman hired Stevens to represent him in the State Case. In preparation for a suppression hearing, Stevens subpoenaed Judge Dalrymple to testify and prepared a list of questions that Neuman requested Stevens ask Judge Dalrymple. However, after hearing Judge Dalrymple's responses to those questions, Neuman released Judge Dalrymple from the subpoena. The suppression hearing was also continued several times due to Dietz's unavailability before it was finally held.
At Neuman's trial, Stevens informed Neuman that he believed that the State had procured Judge Dalrymple as a rebuttal witness in the event that Neuman chose to testify. Based on this information, Neuman chose not to testify at trial. Prior to trial, the State indicated that, unless Neuman took a plea bargain, it would seek the full statutory penalty of six months to one year imprisonment if Neuman was convicted. Neuman was convicted at trial but, at sentencing, the State only sought two days of jail time.
Neuman alleges a host of other purported violations and envisions a wide-ranging conspiracy among every party involved in the State Case designed to deprive him of his constitutional rights. He also believes that Stevens provided him ineffective assistance in the State Case. He appealed his conviction in the State Case to the Iowa Supreme Court. The Iowa Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and issued procedendo. See Exhibit A to State Defendants' Motion (docket no. 37-1) (procedendo in the State Case).
On May 18, 2015, Neuman filed a complaint in Neuman I.2 The various defendants filed motions to dismiss in Neuman I. On October 9, 2015, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss in Neuman I. The court applied the abstention doctrine outlined in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and dismissed Neuman's claims forequitable relief because the State Case was still pending. See Oct. 9, 2015 Order (Neuman I docket no. 46) at 16-20. The court also noted that Neuman had failed to satisfy the favorable termination rule under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and therefore denied his request for money damages. See id. at 20-22. Therefore, the court found that Neuman was unable to proceed with his claims and dismissed them without prejudice, with the understanding that such claims may become cognizable at a later time.
Because the Three-Judge Panel Motion concerns the adjudication of the various Motions to Dismiss in the instant action, the court shall address this Motion first. In the Three-Judge Panel Motion, Neuman requests that a panel of judges render decision on the Motions to Dismiss. Neuman argues that, "with a panel of [j]udges, [he is] more likely to get a proper decision." Three-Judge Panel Motion at 1. Dietz argues that a panel of judges is inappropriate because the instant action does not exist within the narrow range of cases in which such a panel is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284. Dietz Resistance at 5. The State Defendants resist on similar grounds. See State Defendants' Resistance at 3-4.
28 U.S.C. § 2284 provides that a panel of three judges "shall be convened when otherwise required by an Act of Congress, or when an...
To continue reading
Request your trial