Decisions by Judge Leonard T Strand
This section of the Web Site contains opinions selected by individual Judges for posting and is not intended to constitute a complete set of opinions for the district or any Judge. The decisions are organized by categories listed on the lower left portion of this page. If you would like to do a word search of the entire database or individual categories you may do so by clicking on the search button below.



Judge> Case Type Case Name Date Filed
Hide details for Judge Leonard T. StrandJudge Leonard T. Strand
Hide details for CivilCivil
-Van Stelton v. Van Stelton -- Order on defendants' motions to strike plaintiffs' disclosures of expert witnesses. Court granted motions based on plaintiffs' failure to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) and 26(a)(2)(C) after the court warned plaintiffs they may not have been in compliance, directed them to the rule, and gave them extra time to comply. Because plaintiffs still failed to comply with the rule and did not demonstrate that noncompliance was harmless or substantially justifiable, the court ruled that exclusion of expert opinion testimony was the appropriate sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1).06/03/2013
-Harrington v. Holder -- Report and Recommendation granting defendant's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed this action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 alleging defendant had violated his constitutional rights by disclosing a complaint he had written about two other inmates which led to an assault by a third inmate. Court found that plaintiff had not produced evidence showing that defendant knew of a risk to plaintiff and failed to take action to protect him. Court also found that the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity. 04/12/2013
-Perzynski v. Cerro Gordo County, Iowa, et al -- Order denying defendants' motion to strike portions of plaintiff's summary judgment appendix. Court concluded that transcripts of unsworn recorded interviews were properly authenticated by plaintiff and included in the summary judgment record. 04/02/2013
-Boss v. Ludwick -- Report and Recommendation on petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner claimed ineffective assistance of counsel based on his attorney's advice to disclose the location of the deceased's body and allegedly-inadequate consultation by his attorney prior to Boss giving consent. In recommending the petition be denied, the court found the petitioner failed to show that the Iowa Court of Appeals unreasonably applied Strickland v. Washington in concluding counsel's representation did not amount to deficient performance.02/19/2013
-Wells Enterprises, Inc. v. Olympic Ice Cream -- Order granting defendant's motion for stay of proceedings pending appeal. Court found defendant's appeal to the Eighth Circuit divested the court of jurisdiction while the appeal was pending, and even if it did not, the case should be stayed in the interests of justice and judicial economy.01/31/2013
-Hanzl v. Collier -- Report and Recommendation on plaintiff's motion to enforce settlement. The court found the parties agreed upon a settlement in which plaintiff is entitled to payment in the amount of $262,500. The parties agreed that plaintiff must be given a deed to the West Street property so that she may sell it and apply the net sale proceeds towards the settlement amount. They also agreed that defendants would be entitled to any proceeds in excess of $262,500, but that they would be liable for any deficiency.01/09/2013
-Hagen v. Siouxland Obstetrics, et al -- Order granting St. Luke's Regional Medical Center's motion to quash a subpoena issued by defendants based on the peer review privilege because Hagen's professional competence is not at issue and the privilege extends to credentialing documents as held by the Iowa Court of Appeals in Day v. The Finley Hospital.12/07/2012
-Vails v. United Community Health Center, Inc., et al -- Order on defendants' and plaintiff's motions for partial summary judgment. Court granted defendants' motion in part dismissing the claims of wrongful termination in violation of public policy and promissory estoppel against UCHC and the claims of tortious interference with employment contract and fraud against the individualdefendants. Defendants' motion was denied as to their argument that plaintiff's alleged damages relating to the sale and maintenance of her home should be stricken. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on her breach of contract claim was denied.12/05/2012
-Van Stelton, et al v. Van Stelton, et al -- Order granting plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' motion for extension of scheduling order as to Rule 26(f) meeting and plaintiffs' initial disclosure under FRCP 26(a) and renewed request for scheduling conference under FRCP 16(b). Court found that the motion to amend was timely and defendants did not demonstrate futility or other available grounds to deny the motion. The parties were directed to prepare a new proposed scheduling order and discovery plan and necessity of 16(b) conference would be determined at a later date.11/09/2012
-Wells Enterprises, Inc. v. Olympic Ice Cream -- Order denying defendant's motion to stay case in favor of arbitration and denying plaintiff's motion to stay arbitration proceedings. Olympic, as a nonsignatory, was unable to bind Wells to arbitration based on its agreements with another company, Marina, through alternative estoppel. Wells was not entitled to stay the arbitration proceeding brought by Olympic and Marina because it had agreed to let the arbitrator determine arbitrability and Marina and its breach of contract claim were not a part of Wells' civil action.10/22/2012
-Hagen v. Siouxland Obstetrics, et al. -- Order denying motion to extend discovery deadline. Defendants failed to show good cause as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) to modify the scheduling order due to lead counsel leaving law firm when three other attorneys from the same firm had entered appearances and did not specify what additional discovery was necessary.10/12/2012
-Fraserside IP LLC v. Gamma Entertainment, et al -- Order granting defendants' motion to quash subpoena and granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's motion to compel discovery and defendants' motion for protective order relating to the scope of permissible jurisdictional discovery concerning the defendants' websites and their contacts in Iowa. Defendants must generate Google Analytics reports formatted as HTML pages or as otherwise agreed that reveal the number of visits to defendants' websites from Iowa-based IP addresses. The websites are limited to only those owned by defendants nd not by their subsidiaries and the time period is limited to visits since January 1, 2009.09/28/2012
-Escobedo v. Lund -- Report and Recommendation on petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 USC 2254. Petitioner claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to move for a mistrial when a juror was substituted during deliberations. In recommending the petition be denied, the Court found the petitioner fialed to show that the decision of the Iowa Court of Appeals involved an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent.09/06/2012
-Vails v. United Community Health Center, Inc., et al. -- Order denying motion to extend discovery deadline. Plaintiff failed to show good cause as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) to modify the scheduling order. In particular, she failed to demonstrate diligence in attempting to schedule the deposition she now seeks to take after the close of discovery.08/20/2012
-Dorrah v. United States of America -- Order granting in part and denying in part the defendant's motion to conduct limited discovery while its motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jursidiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is pending. The court had previously granted plaintiff leave to conduct limited discovery to gather facts that may be relevant to defendant's argument concerning subject matter jurisdiction. The court now determines that defendant, too, may conduct limited written discovery but may not depose plaintiff at this stage of the case.07/31/2012
-French v. Cummins Filtration, Inc. -- Order denying plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint to add a new claim. The motion was filed long after the deadline for amendments to pleadings and after the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the only existing claim. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish good cause for the untimely amendment as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b).07/19/2012
-Progressive Casualty Insurance Company v. FDIC, et al. -- Order denying defendant FDIC's motion for early discovery, finding that a request for discovery materials needed to defend an anticipated (but not yet filed) motion for summary judgment was not good cause for early discovery and defendant's concerns could adequately be addressed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d).07/11/2012
-Jackson v. Green -- Order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff alleged his employment was terminated unlawfully on the basis of his race and in retaliation for his complaints. The court held that the summary judgment record contained no evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact with regard to either claim. Plaintiff failed to show the defendants' proferred non-discriminatory reason for termination was false or that his termination was motivated by discrimination or retaliation.06/26/2012
Hide details for CriminalCriminal
-USA v. Clayton -- Order denying pro se motion to proceed under a pseudonym and prohibit public disclosure of defendant's physical description. Court held that defendant's concern for anonymity was speculative and unsupported and did not fall within the limited scope of legitimate reaons for anonymity in criminal proceedings. Additionally, the court noted that under these circumstances, an oder prohibiting public disclosure of defendant's physical description would violate the First Amendment.06/14/2013
-USA v. Poole -- Report and Recommendation denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from a vehicle after a traffic stop. The court found that the initial stop was lawful and the extension of the stop to bring a narcotics-detecting canine to the scene was supported by the officer's reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The court also found that the canine was certified and reliable and that his indication of narcotics provided probable cause to search the vehicle.04/18/2013
-USA v. Ramirez-Hernandez; USA v. Millan-Vasquez; and USA v. Roque-Castro -- Order on detention for defendants facing charges of illegal reentry. Court held that Government met burden of showing no condition or combination of conditions could reasonably assure the defendants' apperance as required based on the testimony of an ICE officer that removal was certain if defendants were released and taken back into ICE custody and based on the court's lack of authority to impose conditions that could prevent removal.12/19/2012
-USA v. Ramirez-Hernandez; USA v. Millan-Vasquez; and USA v. Roque-Castro -- Order on detention for defendants facing charges of illegal reentry. Court held that Government met burden of showing no condition or combination of conditions could reasonably assure the defendants' apperance as required based on the testimony of an ICE officer that removal was certain if defendants were released and taken back into ICE custody and based on the court's lack of authority to impose conditions that could prevent removal.12/19/2012
-USA v. Ramirez-Hernandez; USA v. Millan-Vasquez; and USA v. Roque-Castro -- Order on detention for defendants facing charges of illegal reentry. Court held that Government met burden of showing no condition or combination of conditions could reasonably assure the defendants' apperance as required based on the testimony of an ICE officer that removal was certain if defendants were released and taken back into ICE custody and based on the court's lack of authority to impose conditions that could prevent removal.12/19/2012
-US v. Mathison -- Order granting motion for severance of trial. Defendant raised a legitimate Bruton concern and the Government was unable to offer any concrete solutions to avoid a violation of defendant's Sixth Amendment rights at a joint trial. In addition, the court identified a serious risk of a "spillover" effect if defendant was tried with codefendants based on the nature of the charges. The defendant therefore met his burden of demonstrating a joint trial would cause him to suffer real prejudice.12/13/2012
-USA v. Troy Fulkerson -- Order overruling defendant's relevancy objection to his criminal history and circumstances of arrest offered by the Government to be used in determining revocation of pretrial release. Court found that evidence of dangerousness did not have to relate to the charged offense and the requirements for revocation and detention under 18 U.S.C. section 3148(b) were met.11/21/2012
-USA v. Barber -- Order denying Dominic Barber's motion for severance of trial. Defendant failed to show his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses would be violated by anticipated statements from a co-defendant. Defendant also did not demonstrate such unique circumstances that the jury would not be able to compartmentalize the evidence against him or that appropriate jury instructions would not be able to prevent any prejudicial "spillover."11/02/2012
-Earl Foy, Jr. v. United States of America -- Order granting in part and denying in part petitioner's motion for psychological evaluation in a Section 2255 case. Petitioner has shown the necessary good cause to allow the requested discovery. However, the court does not have the authority to compel the Bureau of Prisons to move petitioner to a facility closer to Fort Dodge, Iowa, for purposes of the proposed evaluation. In addition, petitioner's request for advance authorization of payment for the expert's fee must be approved by the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit because the proposed fee exceeds the cap set forth in the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3006A(e)(3).10/15/2012
-United States of America v. Ruben Olivares-Rodriguez -- Report and Recommendation on plaintiff's motion to dismiss defendant's petition for writ of error coram nobis. Court recommended that the motion be denied and the petition re-filed as a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct a federal sentence under 28 U.S.C. section 2255. The defendant is procedurally barred from relief under a coram nobis petition because he is still "in custody" while under supervised release, but his petition may be construed as a section 2255 motion given the alleged errors and requested relief.10/02/2012
-USA v. Baisden -- Order granting government's motion for psychiatric examination of defendant. Defendant has pled guilty and has been evaluated by a mental health professional selected by the defense. The defense intends to rely on the professional's opinion as a mitigating factor for sentencing purposes. The government seeks to compel defendant to undergo a second evaluation by an expert selected by the government in order to address and rebut the defense expert's opinion. Defendant correctly notes that this situation does not fall within Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.2. However, the court finds that it has the inherent authority to compel the requested examination and that it is appropriate to do so under these circumstances.08/01/2012
-USA v. Stephenson -- Report and Recommendation denying defendant's motion to suppress statements made to law enforcement while a search warrant was executed at his home. Although the defendant was not Mirandized prior to being questioned, The circumstances show that he was not in custody. As such, the lack of a Miranda warning does not render the statements inadmissible.06/27/2012
Hide details for Social Security CasesSocial Security Cases
-Keyser v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found ALJ erred by relying heavily on claimant's noncompliance with recommended treatment to discredit her subjective complaints without considering whether noncompliance was related to her mental impairments. Court recommended remand to obtain medical opinion on this issue and reconsider her RFC in light of this evidence and new evidence that had been submitted to the Appeals Council.05/31/2013
-Henning v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found ALJ erred at step two by failing to conduct a careful evaluation of the medical findings and consider the claimant's subjective complaints in determining whether her skin condition was severe. Court recommended remand with instructions to conduct a new step two analysis, consider whether her skin condition met or equaled a listing at step three and consider the effects of her skin condition both separately and in combination with her mental impairment in determining her RFC at step four. 05/09/2013
-Miller v. Colvin -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ erred at step two by failing to consider the claimant's subjective allegations and the combination of all his impairments. ALJ also erred at step four by failing to consider both severe and non-severe impairments in determining the claimant's RFC. Case reversed and remanded for further proceedings.05/07/2013
-Meyerhoff v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ did not obtain additional medical evidence as required by the previous remand order, improperly excluded a previously identified limitation and provided a new RFC that was not supported by substantial evidence. Court recommended the case be reversed and remnded for further proceedings. 05/02/2013
-Kinseth v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found substantial evidence supported the ALJ's evaluation of the medical opinions and recommended the ALJ's decision be affirmed.04/04/2013
-Tomlinson v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found substantial evidence supported the ALJ's evaluation of the treatiing source opinion and claimant's credibility and recommended the ALJ's decision be affirmed.03/15/2013
-Comstock v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ did not properly evaluate the credibility of the claimant or her husband concerning the severity and limitations of her migraines. Case reversed and remanded for re-evaluation of credibility and further development of the record if necessary.02/14/2013
-Kling v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ did not properly evaluate treating physician's medical opinion in that she did not give it controlling weight or explain why it was not given controlling weight as required by the regulations. Court recommended the ALJ's decision be reversed and remanded.01/31/2013
-Rohwer v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found substantial evidence supported the ALJ's decision that claimant's impairment did not meet the listing requirements of Section 12.04. Substantial evidence also supported the limitations provided in the hypothetical question to the vocational expert and the ALJ was entitled to rely on the expert's testimony in concluding the claimant could perform other work and was not disabled.01/09/2013
-Jansen v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found substantial evidence in the record supported the ALJ's credibility analysis, RFC determination, and the finding that claimant's hearing loss did not meet or equal any of the listed impairments. 01/08/2013
-Tracy v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found ALJ did not provide "good reasons" for giving the treating physician's opinion less than controlling weight and there was overwhelming evidence that claimant could not lift more than 10 pounds since his alleged onset date. Because claimant could not return to past relevant work and had no transferrable skills under this limitation, the court recommended the ALJ's decision be reversed and remanded.12/28/2012
-Sangel v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application of Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ properly evaluated the medical opinions, analyzed claimant's credibility, and concluded claimant could perform other work in the national economy, with findings supported by substantial evidence.12/21/2012
-Morrison v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of applications for Title II disability insurance benefits and disabled widow's benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ erred in discrediting treating physician's opinion and claimant's subjective allegations relating to mental disorder based on her efforts to gain employment and an improper inference that her disorder was situational which was not supported by substantial evidence. Case reversed and remanded for calculation and award of benefits.11/28/2012
-Kofron v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found ALJ properly considered the medical opinions and new medical evidence did not provide a basis for changing the ALJ's decision. Substantial evidence supported the ALJ's credibility analysis, RFC determination, hypothetical question to the VE, and his ultimate decision that claimant was not disabled.10/25/2012
-Agan v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI Supplemental Security Income benefits. Court found ALJ properly determined claimant's credibility and fully developed the record as to claimant's work-related limitations, diabetic peripheral neuropathy, and mental impairments, with findings supported by substantial evidence.10/15/2012
-Foster v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI Supplemental Security Income benefits. Court found ALJ failed to fully develop the record regarding claimant's past work and should have made findings regarding claimant's vocational rehabilitation and whether claimant met criteria under Listing 12.05C. Court recommended remand for further development of the cord. 09/26/2012
-Carter v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application of Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found substantial evidence supported the ALJ's decision that claimant was not disabled.08/20/2012
-Nicolls v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of applications for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI Supplemental Security Income. Court found substantial evidence supported Commissioner's decision that claimant was not disabled.07/12/2012