Decisions
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.


JudgeCan be sorted ascendingCase TypeCase NameDate Filed
-Charette v. Duffy (Report and Recommendation on defendants' motion for summary judgment in prisoner civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Plaintiff alleged defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by being deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs when they failed to provide him with proper testing, treatment, and care for Hepatitis C virus. In recommending summary judgment be granted in favor of defendants, court found protocols developed by Iowa Department of Corrections, in conjunction with the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, were appropriate; plaintiff's test results did not fall within the parameters of the protocols to warrant liver biopsy or referral to outside doctors; and defendants had not violated plaintiff's rights.)08/04/2004
-Muckey v. Barnhart (Report and recommendation on appeal from denial of Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found substantial evidence existed to support Commissioner's decision that claimant, who was working at temporary full-time job at time of ALJ hearing, was not disabled.)08/02/2004
-Raven v. Barnhart (Report and recommendation on appeal from denial of Title XVI supplemental security income and Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found ALJ failed to give proper weight to opinions of plaintiff's treating physician, and two other consulting physicians who actually examined plaintiff, and gave improper weight to opinions of non-examining, non-treating consultants whose opinions were based solely on records review. Court found ALJ erred in finding alcoholism to be contributing factor to a finding of disability during the relevant time period, and recommended Commissioner's decision be reversed.)07/26/2004
-Durham v. Barnhart (Memorandum Opinion & Order on appeal from denial of retirement insurance benefits. Plaintiff was found to be disabled in 1983, although she did not qualify for disability insurance benefits because she lacked the requisite number of quarters of coverage. The issue here is whether the years from and after she was found to be disabled are excludable as a "period of disability" for purposes of determining her eligibility for retirement insurance benefits. Held: Although the statute is not a model of clarity, the court defers to the Commissioner's interpretation of the statute. Thus, Plaintiff is not entitled to benefits because she lacks the requisite number of quarters of coverage.)07/15/2004
-Williams v. Ault (Report and recommendation on respondent's motion to dismiss petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. section 2254, and on the merits of the petition. Respondent claimed petition was mixed, including both exhausted and unexhausted claims. Court found the only unexhausted claim also was procedurally defaulted; recommended the claim be deemed barred, leaving only exhausted claims for review; and, therefore, recommended the motion to dismiss be denied. On the merits, court found petitioner had failed to show prejudice from trial counsel's allegedly inadequate performance, and therefore he could not prevail on ineffective assistance of counsel claim. As a result, appellate counsel could not be ineffective for failing to raise, on appeal, claim that trial counsel was ineffective.)07/12/2004
-Jasa v. Mathes (Report and recommendation on respondent's motion to dismiss habeas petition brought under 28 U.S.C. section 2254. Court recommended dismissal of petition, finding: (1) with regard to claim of juror misconduct, petitioner failed to satisfy requirements for fundamental-miscarriage-of-justice exception to ordinary "cause" and "prejudice" standard for overcoming procedural default; petitioner failed to come forward with new, reliable evidence of actual innocence; (2) with regard to claims that trial and appellate counsel were ineffective, petitioner failed to show his mental illness constituted cause for procedural default by interfering with or impeding his ability to comply with state procedural requirements.)06/28/2004
-Sioux City Country Club v. Cincinnati Insurance Co. (Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff sued when Defendant denied coverage for damages that resulted when accumulated rainwater leaked from a hole that had rusted through an underground drainage pipe. Court found the insurance policy in question did not cover the damaged property, which specifically excluded damage due to "earth movement" or "water.")06/22/2004
-Quist v. Barnhart (Report and Recommendation on appeal from denial of Title XVI supplemental security income and Title II disability insurance benefits. Plaintiff claimed disability due to back pain, seizures, and headaches. ALJ found the evidence of record did not support the plaintiff's testimony that he was unable to perform any type of work. Court found substantial evidence existed in the record to support the ALJ's credibility determination, and recommended the Commissioner's decision to deny benefits be affirmed.)06/16/2004
-Berg v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. (Memorandum Opinion and Order denying defendant's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff's decedent was killed in an accident while he ws driving a semi truck insured by defendant as part of a fleet of trucks owned by a Nebraska company. Nebraska UIM endorsement to insurance policy issued by defendant provided coverage for vehicles 'principally garaged' or 'licensed' in Nebraska. Defendant argued the Nebraska UIM endorsement did not apply to truck driven by plaintiff's decedent for two reasons: (1) the truck in question was not 'prinicpally garaged' in Nebraska, because it was parked for extended periods of time at an Iowa location; and (2) the truck was not 'licensed' in Nebraska because it was registered under the International Registration Plan, and therefore it was licensed in all jurisdictions in which it was operated. Court found truck was licensed in Nebraska for purposes of coverage under the UIM endorsement. Court further found that on applicable date under Nebraska UIM statute, truck was 'principally garaged' in Nebraska.06/03/2004
-Engling v. Barnhart (Report and Recommendation on appeal from denial of Title XVI supplemental security income and Title II disability insurance benefits. Plaintiff alleged disability due to Bipolar Disorder and depression. Court found ALJ improperly discounted opinions of plaintiff's therapist, a licensed clinical social worker, at step three of the sequential evaluation process. Regulations provide therapist's opinions are appropriate source of evidence regarding severity of a claimant's impairment and its effect on his ability to work. Court also found ALJ erred in discounting plaintiff's credibility. Court recommended reversal and remand for calculation nd award of benefits.)05/28/2004
-Miller v. Barnhart (Memorandum Opinion and Order on appeal from denial of disability insurance benefits. Court found record contained substantial evidence to support Commissioner's decision, and recommended the decision be affirmed.)05/19/2004
-Bakker v. Kuhnes (Order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment in prisoner 1983 action. Court found plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies with regard to his claims that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.)05/14/2004
-McInnis v. Barnhart (Report and Recommendation on appeal from Commissioner's ruling that plaintiff was "not without fault" in causing overpayment of disability insurance benefits. Court found ALJ failed to develop the record fully and fairly; erred in failing to make a credibility determination; and placed improper weight on what the ALJ believed the plaintiff's wife knew or should have known. Court recommended remand for further development of the record and consideration of further evidence.)05/13/2004
-Berg v. Barnhart (Report and Recommendation on appeal from denial of Title II disability insurance benefits. Court discusses difficulty in evaluating disability claim based on asthma, where claimant is able to control symptoms through self medication and controlling his environment. Court found record did not support ALJ's conclusion that claimant's subjective complaints were less than credible, and ALJ erred in relying on absence of certain medical documentation that could have been obtained upon request. Court found ALJ did not err in posing hypothetical question to vocational expert. Court recommended Commissioner's decision be reversed, and case be remanded for calculation and award of benefits.)05/04/2004
-Loring v. Advanced Foods, Inc. (Memorandum Opinion and Order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment in case where plaintiff claimed his employment was terminated in violation of ADA, FMLA, and in retaliation for asserting rights under statutes and filing worker's compensation claims.)04/09/2004
-Stewart v. Barnhart (Report and Recommendation on appeal from denial of Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ erred in finding claimant's subjective complaints not to be credible, and in failing to develop the record fully. Court also found ALJ improperly extrapolated wages for part-time work into a hypothetical full-time job for purposes of deeming part-time job to be past relevant work.)04/06/2004
-Saenz v. Barnhart (Report and Recommendation on appeal from denial of application for SSI benefits. In recommending reversal and remand, Court found ALJ erred in (1) failing to give great weight to opinion of physician's assistant who had treated claimant frequently over fourteen-month period, and had been claimant's exclusive treating medical sourse during that time; (2) assessing claimant's RFC and finding he could return to past work, with result that ALJ should have proceeded to step five of sequential evaluation process; and (3) failing to make a thorough analysis regarding claimant's credibility.)03/30/2004
-Thomas v. Barnhart (Memorandum Opinion and Order on appeal from denial of disability benefits. Court found ALJ erred in failing to develop the record fully and fairly; finding plaintiff could return to past work; relying on ambiguous testimony by vocational expert; and placing unwarranted weight on testimony of non-examining physician. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.)03/19/2004
-Salz v. Stellar Industries (Order denying defendants' motion for summary judgment on gender discrimination and retaliatory discharge claims.)03/10/2004
-Atwood v. Mapes (R&R on petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2254. Petitioner asserted trial court erred in informing jury about threatening phone call, and doing so in ex parte meeting with jury. He also asserted ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to be present during judge's meeting with jury, and failing to voir dire jury to determine prejudice. Court recommended denying petition on basis that, under applicable Supreme Court precedent, petitioner had failed to prsent convincing evidence that state court erred in finding jury's deliberations were not biased; he and his counsel waived his right to be present in meeting with jury, and even if ex parte meeting was erroneous, error was harmless; and petitioner failed to show prejudice from counsel's alleged ineffectiveness.02/25/2004
-Hepperle v. Ault (R&R on petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2254. Court found petitioner was not "in custody" at the time he made statements to police during a murder investigation so no Miranda warnings were required, and trial counsel was not ineffective in failing to investigate and offer evidence that someone else committed the murder.02/13/2004
-Austin v. Ault (R&R on petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2254. Court found five of petitioner's six claims to be procedurally defaulted. On sixth claim, court found appellate counsel could not be ineffective in failing to preserve issue of trial counsel's effectiveness, where trial counsel was not ineffective.02/11/2004
-Montgomery v. Mapes (R&R that petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2254 be denied. Issue: Whether petitioner's trial counsel was ineffective in failing to seek exclusion of evidence from show-up identifications. Court found petitioner failed to show trial court made unreasonable determination of facts in light of evidence, where trial court found strong circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish petitioner's guilt even in absence of challenged eyewitness identifications. Therefore, petitioner could not show prejudice for purposes of ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and appellate counsel was not ineffective in failing to raise issue of trial counsel's ineffectiveness. 02/09/2004
-Foell v. Mathes (R&R on petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2254. Issue: Whether attorney's failure to investigate and present defense of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome constituted ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. Court found counsel's failure to offer futile defense was not effective. Court also found court's performance did not warrant presumption of prejudice under United States v. Cronic. 02/06/2004
-Henrichs v. Barnhart (Memorandum Opinion and Order on appeal from denial of Social Security disability benefits. Plaintiff claimed disability due to arthritis in thrumbs; pain in back, neck, hips and hands; and migraines. Court found ALJ's residual functional capacity assessment, as presented in hypothetical questions to Vocational Expert, did not encompass all of plaintiff's limitations. Court discusses duty of Appeals Council to provide explanation when it considers, and rejects, post-hearing evidence. Commissioner's decision reversed and case remanded for further proceedings.02/03/2004
-Dunkerson v. Barnhart (R&R recommending Commissioner's decision be affirmed denying applications for SSI and DI benefits. Court discusses recent case law regarding burdens of proof in five-step evaluation process (Sec. III.A.); standard of review for ALJ's credibility determination (Sec. IV.A.; see Sec. III.B.); standards for ALJ's residual functional capacity assessment (Sec. IV.B.); and requirements for proper hypothetical question to Vocational Expert (Sec. IV.C.).01/20/2004
-Bales v. Ault (Report and Recommendation on motion to dismiss. Plaintiff alleged violation of rights under 8th and 14th Amendments in connection with prison's revised property policy that prohibits inmates from having electric razors or beard trimmers. Court found policy change did not constitute an atypical and significant hardship in relation to ordinary incidents of prison life, and further found deprivation of electric razor did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Court recommended granting defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).01/08/2004
-Zeigler v. Fisher-Price (Order on defendant's post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for new trial. Rulings include the following: (1) because defendant did not raise, in its Rule 50(a) motion at the close of plaintiff's evidence, any grounds for judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff's design defect claim, defendant could not raise the issue in its post-trial Rule 50(b) motion; (2) court has authority to grant judgment as a matter of law sua sponte, even when no proper Rule 50(a) motion has been made; (3) Iowa law limits design defect cases involving only economic loss to warranty theories, but permits personal injury plaintiffs to assert both tort and warranty theories; (4) court denied motion for judgment as a matter of law on grounds raised by defendant, but entered judgment as a matter of law sua sponte on design defect claim; (5) under Iowa law, punitive damages are not warranted absent showing of willful or wanton conduct, and in absence of same, court granted motion for judgment as matter of law on punitive damages claim; (6) parties have a duty to comply with Final Pretrial Order, which is not a Local Rule or simply a matter of form and carries the same weight as any other court order; (7) Consumer Product Safety Commission press release announcing recall of toy was properly admitted into evidence as an admission under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A), (B), & (C); (8) court conditionally denied motion for new trial in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(c).01/08/2004
-Centra v. Barnhart (Amended Report and Recommendation on appeal from denial of SSI and DI benefits. Court found that although none of plaintiff's medical or psychological impairments, standing alone, was sufficient to warrant a finding of disability, all of his impairments in combination rendered him disabled. Opinion discusses Social Security Ruling relating to consideration of residual functional capacity when mental illness is involved.)01/08/2004
-Directv v. Weber, et al (Order granting default judgment to plaintiff for defendant's purchase of "pirate access device" that allowed defendant to access plaintiff's satellite transmissions without subscribing to the service. Court discusses requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1) and (2), and damages provisions of 47 U.S.C. section 605(e)(3)(C)(i) and 18 U.S.C. section 2520(c)(2). In absence of evidence of plaintiff's damages, court execised discretion in declining to award demages under 18 U.S.C. section 2520(c)(2), and awarded minimum damages of $1,000 under 47 U.S.C. section 605(e)(3)(C)(i).)12/17/2003
-Knudsen v. Barnhart (R&R on appeal from denial of Social Security disability insurance benefits, recommending reversal and judgment for plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged disability due to Bipolar Disorder, fibromyalgia, Raynaud's phenomenon, and irritable bowel syndrome. Court found ALJ did not give proper weight to opinions of plaintiff's treating psychiatrist and counselor. Court discusses weight to be given to counselor as an "other" medical source.)12/16/2003
-McGee v. Barnhart (appeal from denial of Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found ALJ erred in rejecting opinions of plaintiff's treating physicians, and in discounting plaintiff's subjective complaints without performing proper Polaski analysis. Reversed and remanded for calculation and award of benefits.)12/08/2003
-Johnson v. Barnhart (R&R in appeal from denial of Social Security disability benefits, recommending Commissioner's decision be reversed. Plaintiff alleged disability due to fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome and other causes. Court found ALJ erred in failing to consider Plaintiff's work history and opinion of treating physician in assessing Plaintiff's credibility, and in failing to credit presence of pain and trigger points as objective medical evidence of fibromyalgia.)12/05/2003
-Grant v. Barnhart (R&R in Social Security appeal where plaintiff claimed disability due to seizures and back pain since 11/02/98. Appeals Council overruled ALJ and found plaintiff to be disabled from and after 01/01/00. Court found substantial evidence existed in the Record to support a finding of disability from and after 09/01/99, and therefore recommended reversal of Commissioner's decision.)12/01/2003
-Brown v. HyVee (Order granting summary judgment to defendant in case where plaintiff claimed employment discrimination based on age, sex, and retaliation. Court found case was untimely on State law retaliation claim; plaintiff failed to exhaust sex discrimination claim; and plaintiff failed to meet his burden to show employer's reasons for demoting plaintiff were pretext for age discrimination.)11/18/2003
-Engineered Products v. Donaldson Company (Order disqualifying trial counsel in patent case. Plaintiff's counsel was formerly defendant's trial counsel when he worked for a large firm. Although he had not worked on present case, and had not done any work for defendant corporation for several years, court found, under facts of case and current law in Iowa and Eighth Circuit, an unrebuttable presumption that attorney was presumed to have knowledge of confidential communications between defendant and other attorneys in counsel's former firm. Court discusses Iowa ethical rules and Eighth Circuit law.)11/14/2003
-DeMaris v. Barnhart (R&R recommending Commissioner's decision be affirmed in appeal from denial of Title II disability benefits. Plaintiff claimed disability on the basis of, inter alia, fibromyalgia, diabetes mellitus, and high blood pressure. Court found evidence in the Record supported inconsistent positions, and because one of them represented the Commissioner's decision, the case should be affirmed.)11/13/2003
-Burks v. Barnhart (R&R in appeal from denial of SSI and DI benefits. Alleged impairments: borderline intellectual functioning, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder. Primary issue was lack of evidence to support any conclusion, either favorable or unfavorable. Court found the ALJ had not fulfilled his duty to develop the record fully, and recommended remand to obtain further evidence and reconsider the decision.)11/03/2003
-Harrington v. Barnhart (R&R recommending reversal and award of benefits in case involving Commissioner's denial of Widow's Insurance Benefits under Title II of Social Security Act. Plaintiff alleged common-law marriage and sought widow's insurance benefits based on decedent's wages. ALJ found no common-law marriage existed. Court recommended reversal and award of benefits. Court discussed Iowa law relating to factors for proof of common-law marriage.)10/30/2003
-Bartleson v. Winnebago Industries, Inc. (Order granting motion to amend complaint. Plaintiffs, who brought a class action for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, sought to add a claim under the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Act. The federal statute only allows for an "opt-in" class action, whereas the Iowa law is not similarly restricted. Court discussed rationale for allowing FLSA and state wage payment claims to be brought in collective action; court's ability to manage two classes of plaintiffs in a single action; and factors bearing on discretionary exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.)10/24/2003
-Carroll v. Barnhart (R&R in Social Security appeal, recommending remand with instructions for the ALJ to further develop the record. Pivotal issue was whether Record contained sufficient evidence to support ALJ's residual functional capacity, and therefore the hypothetical posed to the Vocational Expert, where the claimant had received almost no treatment at all for the allegedly disabling condition.)09/25/2003
-Anderson v. Barnhart (R&R in appeal from denial of SSI benefits. Issues: claimant's credibility; impact of failure to seek treatment due to financial hardship. Court recommended case be remanded for reconsideration with directions to view claimant's subjective complaints as credible.)09/02/2003
-Connor v. Ault (R&R following bench trial in this civil rights action brought by prisoners at Anamosa State Penitentiary. The plaintiffs, both practicing Muslims, alleged their constitutional rights were violated by prison policies that prevented them from participating fully in Islamic religious services and activities. Court found policies were reasonably related to legitimate penological interests, and recommended judgment for the defendants.)08/06/2003
-Pioneer Hi-Bred v. Ottawa Plant Food (Order granting motion to compel production of communications between defendant's experts and defendant's attorneys, following the holding in In re Pioneer Hi Bred International, Inc., 238 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2001), which the Eighth Circuit described as "applying Eighth Circuit law on privileges and holding that documents and information disclosed to an expert in connection with testimony are discoverable whether or not the expert relies on the documents and information in preparing the expert report." Pepsico, Inc. v. Baird, Kurtz & Dobson LLP, 305 F.3d 813, 817 n.2 (8th Cir. 2002).)07/25/2003
-Jessen v. Barnhart (R&R in Social Security appeal, recommending the Commissioner's decision be affirmed. Plaintiff claimed disability based on borderline intellectual functioning and depression. Court found plaintiff could return to past relevant work, and therefore was not disabled.)07/22/2003
-Zeigler v. Fisher-Price (Order on motions to preclude expert testimony and to bifurcate punitive damages phase of trial. Court discusses choice of law rules, standards for evaluating expert testimony in general, Iowa law on use of circumstantial evidence to support expert opinion, and law relating to biburcation of claims.)07/01/2003
-Kirkpatrick v. Barnhart (Memorandum opinion reversing Commissioner's decision denying Social Security benefits for a closed period. Court held the ALJ incorrectly relied on the opinions of non-examining, non-treating physicians, and improperly discounted or ignored opinions of the plaintiff's treating physicians.)06/18/2003
-Schneider v. Jergens, et al (R&R on motion to dismiss filed by Intervenor State of Iowa in a habeas proceeding under 28 U.S.C. section 2254. Petitioner challenges constitutionality of appellate procedure in contempt actions. Iowa law provides that if contempt application is denied, applicant may file direct appeal as of right, but if application is granted, defendant may only appeal by way of petition for writ of certiorari. State intervened on the constitutional issue and moved to dismiss. Issues discussed: procedural default; exhaustion of remedies, specifically whether criminal contempt is a "public offense" for purposes of postconviction relief actions, and excused failure to exhaust where available remedies are deficient or futile. Court recommends denial of motion to dismiss, and certification of constitutional question to Iowa Supreme Court.)06/11/2003
-Bowers v. Burger (R&R on motion to dismiss habeas action under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254. Issues: AEDPA statute of limitations; procedural default; and whether defendant's low IQ of 70 constitutes cause sufficient to overcome procedural default, or to toll the AEDPA statute of limitations)05/30/2003
-Deakins v. Barnhart (R&R in Social Security appeal recommending that the Commissioner's decision be affirmed. Issues: ALJ's credibility determination; what constitutes a "treating physician," and proper weight to be given to physicians' opinions, appropriateness of hypothetical question posed to Vocational Expert)05/29/2003
-Zeigler v. Fisher-Price, Inc. (Order granting partial summary judgment to toy manufacturer in products liability case. Plaintiff asserted claim for emotional distress damages arising from allegation that defendant fraudulently concealed and failed to disclose to plaintiff information about fire hazard posed by Power Wheels toy. Court held Iowa law does not support a claim for emotional distress damages in a fraud action. Discussion of Iowa law relating to emotional distress claims.)05/08/2003
-Henrich v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security (R&R in Social Security appeal recommending reversal and award of disability benefits. Court found the ALJ improperly discredited the claimant's subjective complaints, and the opinions of medical and vocational experts relying on those complaints, without conducting a proper Polaski analysis.)05/01/2003
-Hepperle v. Ault (Order denying evidentiary hearing in habeas case under 28 U.S.C. section 2254. Petitioner failed to fully develop factual basis for claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, because PCR counsel failed to question trial counsel about significance of two police reports. Court held ineffective assistance of PCR counsel is not sufficient basis to warrant evidentiary hearing.)04/21/2003
-McGuire v. Davidson Manufacturing (Order on post-trial motions in products liability case. Plaintiff fell and was injured when a ladder on which he was standing broke. Jury found no design defect; found manufacturing defect, but also found ladder was manufactured in accordance with state of the art; and found for plaintiff on general negligence/res ipsa loquitur theory. In post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law, defendants argued general negligence was inapplicable on these facts. Among other things, defendants argued that because jury found the ladder met state of the art, the defendants could not have failed to use ordinary care, and therefore the jury's verdict was inconsistent. In denying the motion on all grounds, court found general negligence theory to be particularly applicable on the facts of this case, and found no inconsistency in the jury's verdict.)04/18/2003
-Brass v. Incorporated City of Manly, Iowa, et al (Order granting partial summary judgment to Mayor and City of Manly, Iowa, on claims by terminated police officers for deprivation of liberty interest without due process, defamation, and retaliatory discharge in violation of public policy. Discusses requirements for due process claim for loss of an employee's liberty interest; requirements for defamation claim under Iowa law; and scope of Iowa's whistle-blower statute, Iowa Code section 70A.29.)04/17/2003
-Jones v. McKinney (R&R on motion to dismiss in habeas case under 28 U.S.C. s. 2254. Issues discussed: defendant's right to challenge guilty plea when no motion in arrest of judgment was filed; procedural default; exhaustion of State remedies; ineffective assistance of counsel; what constitutes "fair presentation" of federal claim in State proceedings)04/09/2003
-LeFlore v. Mathis, et al. (R&R on motion to dismiss petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 24 U.S.C. s. 2254. Recommends dismissing petition on basis that petitioner has been released from custody, and failed to allege sufficient collateral consequences to survive mootness inquiry.)04/01/2003
-Marnell v. Barnhart (Appeal of denial of several applications for Social Security benefits, including applications for SSI benefits under Title XVI as both a child and an adult, appliction for DI benefits under Title II, and application for Child's Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II. Discussion of disability requirements for child and adult claimants; regulations governing personality disorders in Listing 12.08; and case-specific requirements for entitlement to child's disability insurance benefits. Court found claimant to be disabled on the basis of personality disorder manifesting itself primarily in behavior problems, including persistent hostility and anger, inability to function socially, and inability to engage in appropriate relationships, including in the work place.)03/31/2003
-Carter v. Woodbury County Jail, et al (Summary judgment motion granted because plaintiff failed to resist. Brief discussion of PLRA requirement for exhaustion of administrative remedies.)03/18/2003
-Zeigler v. Fisher-Price (Order requiring disclosure of certain internal memoranda in products liability case. Discusses availability of private right of action under Consumer Product Safety Act; law applicable to claims of privilege when court's jurisdiction is based on diversity; requirements to withhold production of documents prepared in anticipation of litigation. In this case, defendant's risk management and legal department routinely investigated all consumer claims of fires involving defendant's products. Court found internal evaluation forms were prepared in ordinary course of business and were discoverable.)03/13/2003
-Butt v. Greenbelt Home Care Agency (R&R on motion for summary judgment in employment discrimination case involving claims under Americans With Disabilities Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Iowa Civil Rights Act, and claim for retaliatory discharge. Discusses requirements for prima facie case under each type of claim; effect of contradictions between deposition testimony and summary judgment affidavit; whether expert testimony is required to substantiate disability claim; effect of mitigating treatment on disability claim.)02/28/2003
-Windle v. John Morrell & Co. (Order granting plaintiff's motion for leave to amend Complaint to specify that the action, brought under 42 USC Section 1981, also was asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court discussed the difference between "race" and "national origin," and whether section 1981 allows a claim for racial discrimination. The court also noted the 8th Circuit's holding that it is an abuse of discretion not to allow this type of amendment, given that Title VII and section 1981 claims are substantially identical."02/17/2003
-Navrude v. The United States of America (USPS) (Order on discovery motions. Discusses whena treating physician is subject to expert witness disclosure requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B).)02/12/2003
-McGuire v. Davidson Mfg Corp. and Louisville Ladder Group LLC (Order granting in part, denying in part, motion to exclude expert testimony in diversity action. Analysis focuses on Daubert and Kumho Tire standards, with citations to numerous Eighth Circuit and other federal cases. Discussion of "differential analysis" methodology)01/08/2003
-Catipovic v. Peoples Cmnty Health, et al (Order certifying the following questions to the Iowa Supreme Court: (1) Is a party who intentionally interferes with the performance of a contract entitled to seek contribution from other parties who allegedly participated in the intentional interference with the performance of the contract? (2) Is a party who intentionally inteferees with the performance of a contract entitled to seek contribution from other parties who allegedly are liable to the injured party for the same damages caused by the first party's intentional interference with the performance of the contract, but who did not act intentionally? (3) If a party who intentionally interferes with the performance of a contract is entitled to seek contribution from other parties who allegedly are liable to the injured party for the same damages caused by the first party's intentional interference with the performance of the contract, is the party seeking contribution prohibited from seeking contribution against a party who has been discharged from liability to the plaintiff by settlement?)01/06/2003
Hide details for CriminalCriminal
-USA v. Dodd -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress. In recommending denial of defendant's motion to suppress, Court found defendant's argument that law enforcement lacked probable cause for search warrant to be without merit. Defendant's contention that law enforcement acted unreasonably in relying on second witness' information was without merit.05/15/2012
-USA v. Tran -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress. In recommending denial of defendant's motion to suppress, Court found that exigent circumstances justified police officers' entry into defendant's residence after executing arrest warrant on defendant's boyfriend. Police observed marijuana and weapon in plain view in defendant's vicinity. Furthermore, officers had right to conduct protective sweep before obtaining search warrant.05/15/2012
-USA v. Malcom -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress. In recommending denial of defendant's motion to suppress, Court found that search warrant affidavit contained ample evidence to support conclusion that defendant possessed contraband. Facts recited in affidavit were sufficient to lead prudent person to believe that there was a fair probability that contraband wold be found in the defendant's home or business. The reasonable inference that defendant would have contraband at his residence or business provided nexus between the items sought in the search warrant and the places to be searched. Alternatively, officers could reasonably rely in good faith on the search warrant issued.05/14/2012
-USA v. Gagen -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress. In recommending granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion to suppress, Court found that defendant was not in custody when he made voluntary statements during interview with state parole officer and deputy sheriff, so Miranda warnings were not required. Furthermore, Court found that defendant was not in custody after subsequent traffic stop by deputy sheriff until sheriff arrested and handcuffed defendant for possessing methamphetamine. Miranda warnings by sheriff thus were not required until defendant was under arrest.05/10/2012
-USA v. Murillo-Figueroa -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress. In recommending denial of defendant's motion to suppress, Court found that probable cause did not justify traffic stop based on multiple air fresheners' purported obstruction of driver's view. Court found, however, that probable cause or at least a reasonable suspicion justified stop based on circumstances leading up to stop.04/27/2012
-USA v. Quintero-Felix -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress. In recommending defendant's motion to suppress be denied, court found that, once officer had probable cause for traffic stop, placing defendant in police cruiser while conducting records check was not unlawful detention. Defendant was not seized after officer completed writing traffic warning, at which point defendant's encounter with police was consensual. Officer also had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify further detention.04/03/2012
-USA v. Jocol-Alfaro and USA v. DeLeon-Ochoa -- Order on detention. Court held risk that defendants might possibly be deported before facing trial on federalc hages was not determinative of their eligibility for pretrial release and that determination had to be made on factors enumerated in 18 USC 3142.10/31/2011
-USA v. Amaya -- Order denying defendant Angel Amaya's motion to strike and/or motion to withdraw, denying as moot defendant Javier Amaya's motion to compel disclosure of identity of source of information, and denying Javier Amaya's motion for a bill of particulars and motion to sever. Report and recommendation recommending denial of Javier Amaya's motion to dismiss Count 2 of the superseding indictment or to strike superfluous language and motion to dismiss Count 1 of the superseding indictment. First, the court did not find that Angel Amaya's counsel's previous representation of government witness created conflict; in any event, government witness and defendant were willing to waive any conflict. Second, the government revealed at the hearing the identity of the source of information; therefore, defendant Javier Amaya's motion to compel disclosure was moot. Third, Javier Amaya's motion for a bill of particulars was not appropriate method to contest sufficiency of the evidence on Count 2. Fourth, Javier Amaya did not show serious prejudice from joinder with co-defendants that would warrant severance. Further, Javier Amaya's motiosn to dismiss Count 2 because of vague or superfluous language and to dismiss Count 1 because of "inextricable entanglement" with Count 2 so as to confuse the jury were without merit and should be denied. 10/03/2011
-USA v. Lindgren -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress statements. In recommending defendant's motion to suppress be denied, court found that, under Eighth Circuit jurisprudence, defendannt was not in custody at the time he made his statements. Failure to give defendant Miranda warnings thus did not require suppression of his statements.08/25/2011
-USA v. Amaya -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized (1) pursuant to a search warrant of his residence; (2) during a consent search of his parents' trailer; and (3) during a search of his vehicle. The affidavit submitted contained information from a cooperating source that was corroborated by officers' search of defendant's trash at his residence and by evidence seized at a traffic stop of the defendant's vehicle. The defendant offered no evidence under Franks v. Delaware that the affiant intentionally or recklessly omitted from the affidavit information that would have been clearly critical to a finding of probable cause. The defendant did not have standing to challenge the search of his parents' trailer; in any event, the search of the trailer did not follow from anything seized pursuant to the search warrant. Court recommended denying suppression of items seized from the defendant's vehicle at the time of his arrest because the defendant failed to state any grounds to support suppression and because no evidence seized from the vehicle would be offered at trial. 08/25/2011
-USA v. Lara-Pantoja -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motions to suppress his post-Miranda statementand his stop, search, and detention, and on defendant's motion to suppress his statements, finding that some of defendant's post-Miranda statements were made involuntarily. Court recommended denying defendant's motions to suppress his stop, search, and detention because probable cause existed for the police officer's stop of defendant's vehicle and because the inventory search of defendant's vehicle after his arrest complied with the police department's impoundment and inventory policy. Court recommended denying defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment.08/02/2011
-USA v. Kristen McCoy and Todd Reynolds -- Report and Recommendation on defendants' motion to suppress evidence. In recommending defendants' motion to suppress be denied, court found that the search warrant to search defendants' residence was supported by probable cause based on items seized during a traffic stop. Defendants did not demonstrate that the affidavit in support of the search warrant was false or that the magistrate who issued the warrant did not have authority to issue a warrant for a search of property in another county.04/21/2011
-USA v. Corona-Torres - Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress drug evidence found during a search of defendant's vehicle at a traffic stop. In recommending defendant's motion to suppress be granted, court found officers had neither probable cause to believe that defendant had unlawfully stopped on a highway nor reasonable suspicion that defendant had unlawfully thrown trash on a highway that justified the stop of the vehicle. Although defendant consented to the vehicle search, his consent did not purge the taint of the illegal stop.04/20/2011
-USA v. Charles -- Order denying defendant's motion to sever. Court found defendant had failed to show he would be sufficiently prejudiced by trial with co-defendants in this drug conspiracy case.12/21/2010
-USA v. Martinez-Rodriguez. Report and Recommendation on motion to suppress evidence. Defendant, who was visibly impaired by alcohol or other drugs at time of questioning, failed to show his will was overborne, and court found his waiver of Miranda rights was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent11/01/2010
-United States of America v. McManaman -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress. In recommending defendant's motion to suppress be denied, court found probable cause existed for issuance of a search warrant for guns, drugs, and related items, and evidence of child pornography inevitably would have been discovered during any search pursuant to the warrant.09/14/2010
-USA v. Hulstein -- Order granting defendant's motion to take trial deposition by telephone.06/03/2010
-USA v. Villanueva-Martinez -- Order on detention. Court held risk that defendant might possibly be deported prior to facing trial on federal charges was not determinative of his eligibility for pretrial release, and determination had to be made based on factors enumerated in 18 USC 3142.04/22/2010
-USA v. Moes -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss indictment charging him with failure to register as a sex offender. Court found the case turned on a factual issue that must be decided by the jury at trial; i.e., whether the defendant "resided" in Iowa.04/14/2010
-USA v. Peter Hanson -- Order denying defendant's motion for severance. Court found Bruton issue to be moot, and found defendant had failed to show prejudice from joint trial with co-defendants.04/12/2010
-United States v. Riesselman -- Amended Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress drugs and cell phone found on his person during a pat-down search, evidence seized during execution of a search warrant, and statements he gave to officers at the scene. Government agreed pat-down search exceeded permissible scope under the circumstances, and court recommended drugs and cell phone be suppressed. On other issues, court found defendant never invoked his right to counsel; failure to give defendant complete copy of search warrant, including attachment that described items to be searched, was not deliberate and did not require suppression of evidence where defendant failed to show prejudice; although defendant's statements regarding illegally-seized drugs and cell phone were fruit of the illegal search, statements were sufficiently attenuated to purge the taint; and defendant's other statements were voluntary and did not flow from illegal seizure of items from defendant's person.03/31/2010
-USA v. Ruben Olivares-Rodriguez -- Report and recommendation on motion to suppress evidence arising from search of vehicle by a certified drug detection dog. Court found dog was reliable, and his handler reasonably believed the dog had indicated on the vehicle, providing probable cause to search the vehicle's interior. Court further found testimony of defense witness Steven Nicely was entitled to no weight.03/22/2010
-Redd v. McKinney -- Report and Recommendation on petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 USC Section 2254. Court found petitioner failed to show Iowa court's decisions were unreasonable in finding his trial and appellate counsel were not ineffective for failing to lodge proper objections to admission of certain evidence at trial. 03/16/2010
-USA v. Riesselman -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress drugs found in his pocket during a pat-down search, evidence seized during execution of a search warrant, and a statement he gave to officers at the scene. Government agreed pat-down search exceeded permissible scope under the circumstances, and court recommended drugs be suppressed. On other issues, court found defendant never invoked his right to counsel; failure to give defendant complete copy of search warrant, including attachment that described items to be searched, was not deliberate and did not require suppression of evidence where defendant failed to show prejudice; and defendant's statement was voluntary and did not flow from illegal seizure of drugs from defendant's pocket. 03/16/2010
-USA v. Harrington -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress. Court found officers' encounter with defendant was completely consensual; officers did not initiate a "stop" of defendant; and defendant was coherent and able to consent to be interviewed.02/16/2010
-USA v. Hanson -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence found during search of vehicle at site of traffic stop. Court found officer's continued detention of defendant after conclusion of traffic stop for further investigation of suspected drugs in vehicle was based on officer's reasonable suspicision and did not violate defendant's Fourth Amendment rights.02/01/2010
-USA v. Rojas - Report and Recommendation that defendant's motion to dismiss indictment for insufficiency of evidence before the grand jury be denied.12/02/2009
-USA v. Stephens -- Order denying Government's motion to amend conditions of pretrial release to include electronic monitoring and curfew. Court found unconstitutional the Adam Walsh Act amendments to the Bail Reform Act requiring mandatory imposition of curfew and electronic monitoring without an individual determination of whether the facts of the case required those conditions of pretrial release.10/27/2009
-USA v. Graham -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence found during execution of a search warrant at his residence. Court found there was sufficient probable cause to issue the warrant and sufficient indicia of validity for the executing officers to rely on the warrant, and the warrant adequately described the places to be searched.09/28/2009
-USA v. Martinez-Pena -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress drug evidence found in his vehicle. Defendant was stopped for speeding. He was cited for driving without a license, and vehicle was seized to install a tracking device pursuant to a warrant. While installing the device, officers found drugs in the vehicle. Court found drugs were not in plain view, and warrantless seach of vehicle violated defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. However, court further found drugs inevitably would have been discovered during inventory search of vehicle and need not be suppressed. 09/23/2009
-USA v. Yockey -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence located on, and stemming from, the discovery of child pornography on his cell phone at the time he was booked into the jail for driving while suspended. Court found discovery of pornographic image by inentorying officer was inadvertent; arresting officer's examination of additional photographs on the phone and questioning of defendant before giving Miranda warnings was unlawful; and detective's questioning of defendant after Miranda warnings and examination of phone's contents with defendant's consent would have occurred solely on the basis of the single photo inadvertently accessed by inventorying officer and therefore need not be suppressed. 08/03/2009
-USA v. Mosley -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress statements made when officers arrived to execute a search warrant at his house. Court found that under Eighth Circuit jurisprudence, defendant was not "in custody" at the time he made his statements, and therefore failure to give him Miranda warnings did not require suppression of his statements.07/27/2009
-USA v. Haltiwanger -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's objection to Government's 851 notice. Interpreting Kansas sentencing guideline scheme applicable to drug tax stamp violation, court found maximum term to which defendant could have been sentenced was seven months, rather than the thirteen months applicable to defendants in higher criminal history categories, and therefore defendant's conviction under the Kansas drug tax stamp law did not qualify as a prior felony confiction for purposes of a federal sentence enhancement.02/11/2009
-USA v. Gregg -- Report and Recommendation on petition to revoke the defendant's term of supervised release.02/04/2009
-USA v. Maul -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Court found officer had probable cause to conduct traffic stop, reasonable suspicion to detain vehicle's occupants for further investigation after traffic stop was concluded, and authority to remove occupants from vehicle for purposes of exterior K-9 sniff of the vehicle.10/30/2008
-USA v. Thies -- Report and Recommendation, recommending defendant's motion to suppress evidence be denied. Defendant's girlfriend, with whom he lived, called police to report that defendant was drunk and acting violently, and she was frightened because he had a gun in the house. Officer went to the house to investigate, with intent to seize the firearm for the parties' and the public's safety. He encountered defendant and some friends in the front yard of the residence. He asked defendant a few questions before arresting defendant on an outstanding warrant. He then entered the house, over defendant's objections, to secure the firearm, and while inside, noticed some live ammunition. After learning defendant had a prior felony conviction, officer secured a search warrant for the house and seized the ammunition and other evidence. Court found defendant's responses to initial questions were noncustodial and need not be suppressed; officer's initial entry into the house to retrieve the gun was lawful; and even if initial entry into the house was not lawful, gun and ammunition inevitably would have been discovered.10/23/2008
-USA v. Huntley -- Report and Recommendation on motion to dismiss indictment. Court found defendant who receives firearm in trade for drugs does not possess the firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 USC 924(c), but recommended the motion be denied as premature.10/21/2008
-USA v. Huntley -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss. Defendant was convicted by a jury of a firearms violation and appealed. Appellate court reversed due to erroneous jury instruction. On remand, government dismissed, and then re-indicted defendant one day later. Defendant argued reprosecution violated his fifth amendment protection against double jeopardy. Court recommended motion be denied based on Supreme Court precedent holding Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar reprosecution of a defendant whose conviction is overturned on appeal due to a trial error, rather than for insufficiency of evidence.09/02/2008
-USA v. Godfrey -- Report and Recommendation on motion to suppress statements defendant made to agents who questioned him at his home. Court found defenadnt's sixth amendment right to counsel had not attached where defendant had not been charged or arrested and was not in custody at time of interview. Defendant was not entitled to Miranda warnings prior to the non-custodial interview, and defendant's statements were not coerced.08/11/2008
-USA v. Stangeland -- Supplemental Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice for speedy trial violation. Court reviewed dismissal of prior case pursuant to the factors set forth in 18 USC 3162, and concluded dismissal without prejudice was proper. Defendant failed to show constitutional violation under Barker v. Wingo factors. 07/29/2008
-USA v. Puok -- Order on Government's motion to compel defense to produce summaries of expert testimony. Court overruled defendant's interpretation of standard Stipulated Discovery Order, holding production of expert witness summaries is required by the stipulation without any notice or request from either party.07/25/2008
-USA v. Kenison -- Report and Recommendation on motion to suppress evidence. Court found defendant had failed to make a preliminary showing that information was omitted from search warrant application recklessly, deliberately, or intentionally, and therefore defendant was not entitled to a Franks hearing.07/21/2008
-USA v. Ortega-Morgado --Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss for speedy trial violation. Parties agreed the indictment should be dismissed, but disagreed on whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice. After weighing factors in 18 USC 3162(a)(1), court recommended dismissal be with prejudice.07/18/2008
-USA v. Stangeland -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss. Defendant was indicted, but no trial was scheduled. Court dismissed indictment sua sponte for speedy trial violation, and Government then obtained a new indictment. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that because the first indictment was dismissed other than on his own motion, the speedy trial clock continued to run. Court found Defendant was beneficiary of the sua sponte dismissal, and the speedy trial clock began to run anew with the second indictment.06/11/2008
-USA v. McManaman -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Court found a Sixth Amendment violation where officers asked defendant a question after he had been indicted and taken into custody but before he had been advised of his rights, and recommended suppression of defendant's response to the question. However, court found firearm located as a result of that response inevitably would have been discovered, and therefore it need not be suppressed, nor did the constitutional violation require suppression of defendant's post-Miranda statements made several hours after his arrest.06/09/2008
-US v. Fundermann -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence found during and as a result of traffic stop. Court found traffic stop was valid; search of vehicle was supported by probable cause; and subsequent search warrant issued on basis of evidence found during traffic stop also was supported by probable cause.05/08/2008
-USA v. Douglas Johnson --Report and Recommendation on defendant's motions to suppress evidence seized from execution of two separate search warrants. Court found the first warrant application to be deficient, and so much so that the court held the Leon exclusionary rule should apply to the evidence seized in execution of the warrant. Court found the second warrant contained sufficient information to support the magistrate's probable cause determination, and further found that in any event, the officers' reliance on the warrant was reasoanble and in good faith.04/01/2008
-USA v. Vo -- Order denying motion to sever. Defendant charged with conspiracy to manufacture and distribute marijuana and money laundering moved for severance from co-defendants charged with continuing criminal enterprise and other crimes. Court found joinder was proper, and defendant failed to show he would suffer serious prejudice from joinder of his case for trial with his co-defendants.03/10/2008
-USA v. Ingram -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress. Court found officer's pre-Miranda question at scene of traffic stop regarding whether defendant had anything in his possession that would get him into trouble was not a custodial inquiry and did not violate defendant's Miranda rights. Court further found search warrant was supported by probable cause.11/28/2007
-USA v. Webb - Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss indictment charging him with possession of a firearm after previously being convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence." Court found question was for the jury as to whether defendant's conduct leading to the state conviction involved the requisite "physical force" to constitute a predicate offense for a conviction under 18 USC 922(g)(9).11/09/2007
-USA v. Howell -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss indictment charging violations of Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, 42 USC 16901 et seq. and 18 USC 2250. Held: (1) SORNA was not applicable to sex offender with pre-SORNA convition until issuance of Attorney General's interim rule on 2/28/07; (2) application of SORNA to conduct predating the interim rule would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution; (3) SORNA does not violate the non-delegation doctrine or the Commerce Clause; (4) application of SORNA to defendant would not violate due process; and (5) proper venue for SORNA violation is fact-based and represents jury question for trial. 11/08/2007
-USA v. Plum -- Order granting motion for involuntary administration of psychotropic drugs to render defendant competent for trial. Court found the Government had proved all four of the Sell factors.08/29/2007
-USA v. McMullin -- Report and Recommendation on motion to dismiss for pre-indictment delay, and motion to dismiss one count of indictment for violating defendant's right against double jeopardy. Court found defendant failed to show delay in filing indictment resulted in actual and substantial prejudice to presentation of his defense, or that government intentionally delayed the indictment to gain tactical advantage or to harass him. On second motion, court held 21 USC 841(c)(2) is a lesser included offense of 21 USC 841(c)(1), so that although trying defendant on both charges does not violate double jeopardy, defendant could not be convicted and punished for both offenses. 08/28/2007
-USA v. McMullin - Order denying defendant's motion for severance. Court found defendant filed to show he would suffer "real prejudice" from joint trial.08/28/2007
-USA v. Sheridan -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress. In recommending denial of motion, court found defendant's nephew, who was working as a security guard at resort, entered defendant's room as a private citizen on his own behalf; and not on behalf of, or with knowledge of and acquiescence by, any government agency.08/15/2007
-USA v. Gocha -- Supplemental Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress. Court found probable cause existed for issuance of second and third warrants to search defendant's computers, digital cameras, personal data device, and storage media. Court further found search warrants met particularity requirement and were not overly broad. 08/10/2007
-USA v. Jeff Cheney -- Report and Recommendation on defendnat's objections to plaintiff's notice of intent to seek enhanced penalties pursuant to 21 USC 851.07/27/2007
-USA v. Gocha -- Report and Recommendation on motion to suppress evidence from search of residence and shop building. Court found unrelated attachment to search warrant was included inadvertently and was not considered by magistrate in issuing warrant; defendant failed to make requisite showing to warrant a Franks hearing; and officers reasonably believed cohabitant of property had authority to consent to search of entire property. 07/03/2007
-USA v. Quiroga -- Report and Recommendation on motion to suppress evidence. Court found officers had probable cause for defendant's warrantless arrest, and recommended evidence from search incident to arrest not be suppressed.06/13/2007
-USA v. O'Connor- Report and Recommendation that defendant's motion to suppress be denied. Defendant argued search warrant for his residence was not supported by probable cause because the facts indicated his alleged activities only occurred at his workplace, not at his residence. Court found issuing judge was entitled to rely on officer's experienced opinion that defendant likely maintained pornographic images and performed illegal acts at his residence.06/11/2007
-USA v. Charles Scott -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Court found defendant had not made adequate showing for a Franks hearing, and even if affidavit in support of search warrant was deficient, officers executed the warrant in good faith and evidence should not be excluded pursuant to Leon.05/08/2007
-United States of America v. Arias-Gonzales -- Report and sua sponte recommendation that case be dismissed for speedy trial violation.05/02/2007
-USA v. Marsh -- Order on motion for extension of time to complete psychological evaluation. Discusses date when time commences for completion of evaluation.03/29/2007
-USA v. Cobb -- Report and Recommendation that defendant's motion to suppress evidence resulting from search of his residence be granted. Court found officers recklessly included false information in warrant affidavit, and when false information was excluded, information in the affidavit would not support a finding of probable cause for a search of defendant's residence. Court further found inevitable discovery exception inapplicable on these facts.03/27/2007
-USA v. Eddie Lee -- Order denying defendant's motion to sever his trial from the trial of his codefendants in case involving conspiracy to manufacture nd distribute crack cocaine.03/13/2007
-USA v. Enrique Aragon-Hernandez -- Order denying defendant's motion for bill of particulars.02/27/2007
-USA v. Huntley -- Report and recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss two counts of indictment. Defendant argued his plea in state court to simple assault under Iowa Code 708.1(1) and 708.2(4) did not satisfy predicate requirements for federal charges of possessing firearm after misdemeanor conviction of domestic violence. In recommending defendant's motion to dismiss be denied, Court found State court judgment established, on its face, the required predicate element of the charges.02/20/2007
-USA v. Bauer -- Report and recommendation that defendant's motion to suppress evidence from traffic stop be denied. Court found defendant consented to search of his vehicle, his consent was not coerced by officers, and "plain view" doctrine was irrelevant to the analysis.01/22/2007
-USA v. Bucio-Sanchez -- Report and recommendation that motion to suppress evidence be denied. Court found inevitable discovery doctrine justified admission of call made to defendant's c ell phone; protective sweep of trailer was justified under the circumstances, and evidence observed in plain view during protective sweep was admissible; and roommate had authority to consent to search of all of trailer except defendant's bedroom.01/03/2007
-USA v. Tolbert - Report and recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress. Court found evidence was sezied lawfully at scene of traffic stop and need not be suppressed; defendant's pre-Miranda statements were custodial in nature and should be suppressed; and defendant later waived rights and gave statements voluntarily and intelligently, so post-Miranda statements need not be suppressed. 12/04/2006
-USA v. Huang and Long -- Report and recommendation on motion to suppress physical evidence. Court found probable cause existed to support issuance of four warrants challenged by defendants, and recommended motion to suppress be denied.10/31/2006
-USA v. Donisi - Report and recommendation that motion to suppress evidence be denied. Court found affidavit in support of search warrant application contained facts sufficient to provide probable cause for issuance of warrant.10/27/2006
-USA v. Becker -- Report and recommendation that motions to suppress evidence and statements be denied. Court found defendant's state probation officer had reasonable suspicion to search defendant's house pursuant to probation agreement when defendant associated with known drug user who had recent arrests, defendant tested positive for drug use, and defendant failed to obtain drug treatment as directed. 10/18/2006
-USA v. Hoffman -- Report and recommendation that motion to suppress evidence be denied. Court found officers were justified in conducting investigatory stop of defendant, and had probable cause to arrest him after he fled scene of suspected drug activity and failed to comply with officers' orders that he stop and remove his hand from his pants pocket.10/17/2006
-USA v. Nieman -- Report and recommendation on motion to dismiss and motion to suppress. Court found informant's use of drugs with defendant did not constitute outrageous governmental conduct warranting either dismissal of case or suppression of evidence. Court further found probable cause supported issuance of search warrant, and warrant described items to be seized with sufficient particularity.10/05/2006
-USA v. Maldonado-Gutierrez - Report and recommendation on defendants' joint motion to suppress evidence located during search of vehicle incident to traffic stop. In recommending denial of motion, court found officers had probable cause to stop vehicle; to detain occupants beyond scope of initial traffic stop; and to conduct warrantless search of vehicle's interior after drug dog indicated on headlight area of vehicle. 08/22/2006
-United States of America v. Sergio Elizarraras-Sepulveda -- Report and recommendation on motion to dismiss one count of two-count indictment. Court found two counts, both involving possession of the same firearm and ammunition, were multiplicitous, and recommended Government be ordered to elect between counts, or to supersede and include both theories in a single count.08/09/2006
-USA v. Kling -- Report and recommendation on three motions to suppress evidence in case involving charges of inducing a minor to engage in sexually-explicit conduct for purposes of producing photos and videos. In recommending that all three motions be denied, court found defendant's Miranda rights were not violated; officers' failure to provide copy of search warrant prior to initiating search did not warrant suppression; information provided by Internet Service Providers provided probable cause for search of defendant's computer and his residence; and probative value of explicit photos and videos outweighed prejudicial effect.07/12/2006
-USA v. Mathison -- Order denying applications for return of seized property. Court found proper procedures were followed in administrative forfeiture proceedings, and court lacked jurisdiction to review the merits of those proceedings in the context of this criminal action.06/13/2006
-USA v. Haberek -- Report and recommendation on defendant's motion to strike the statutory presumption from 18 USC 228(b), as an unconstitutional violation of his Due Process rights. Court found authorities cited by defendant to be persuasive, and in absence of any resistance by the Government, recommended motion be granted. 06/07/2006
-USA v. Avise -- Report and recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Officer stopped vehicle registered to individual whose license was barred. Defendant had recently purchased vehicle and had no registration. Defendant's behavior led officers to believe he was under influence of alcohol or drugs. Officers arrested defendant to perform sobriety testing at police station. Defendant's car and jacket were searched incident to arrest, and drugs and other evidence were found. Search warrant executed at defendant's residence yielded further incriminating evidence. Court found officers had reasonable suspicion defendant was engaged in criminal activity justifying his warrantless arrest; search of vehicle and jacket incident to arrest was proper; and warrant was based on probable cause. 04/18/2006
Hide details for --USA v. McCall -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss Count 2 of Indictment as multiplicitous. Defendant was charged in two counts of illegally possessing ammunition, in violation of two separate subsections of 18 USC 922(g), and argued the single incident of possession should be charged in only a single count pursuant to United States v. Richardson, 439 F.3d 421 (8th Cir. 2006). Court agreed, and recommended Government be ordered either to elect between the two counts, or to supersede and include both theories or prosecution in a single count. 04/11/2006
[Replication or Save Conflict]
-United States of America v. Turner -- Report and recommendation on defendant's motion to sever two counts of Superseding Indictment for trial. Count 1 charged defendant with discrete act of attempting to manufacture methamphetamine. Count 2 charged defendant with perjury in another individual's trial that occurred more than four months prior to act alleged in Count 1. Court found the two offenses did not meet any of the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(a), and recommended counts be severed for trial pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 14(a).02/21/2006
-United States of America v. Yerkes -- Report and recommendation on motions to suppress evidence. Court found officer's approaching defendant to talk to her in parking lot was lawful; defendant consented to search of her vehicle; and evidence seized from defendant's vehicle, and from search of apartment pursuant to warrant, should not be suppressed. Court further found defendant had invoked her right to remain silent and requested an attorney, and officers' re-initiation of contact to interview defendant violated her Fifth Amendment rights; thus her statements to officers during post-arrest interview should be suppressed.02/07/2006
-USA v. Williamson -- Order on motion to continue competency hearing. Court discusses interplay between statutes authorizing competency evaluations of criminal defendants in the federal system, and the Speedy Trial Act.01/18/2006
-United States v. Easley -- Report and recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence from two separate searches. First search took place at Omaha, Nebraska, bus station, when officers observed suspicious actions by defendant and companion, neither was able to produce adequate identification, and companion ran from police. Second search took place at Sioux City, Iowa, motel, after officers learned drugs had been sold in motel room and arrested all occupants for frequenting disorderly house. Court found officers had probable cause to detain defendant and conduct pat-down search at bus station, and to detain, arrest, and search defendant at motel.01/09/2006
-USA v. Lamere - Report and recommendation that motions to suppress evidence be denied. Officers stopped vehicle in which Defendant was passenger for purpose of arresting vehicle's driver. Drugs were found in vehicle and Defendant was arrested, as well. Rejecting Defendant's contrary argument, court found officers had probable cause to stop vehicle, arrest driver, search vehicle, and arrest Defendant.11/29/2005
-USA v. Morris -- Report and recommendation on defendant's motions to suppress evidence. Defendant arguerd officers lacked probable cause to stop his vehicle and arrest him, and also that his arrest was based on racial profiling. Court recommended motions be denied, finding no evidence to suggest racial profiling and officers had probable cause to stop and arrest defendant.11/17/2005
-United States of America v. Wendel -- Report and recommendation, recommending denial of motion to suppress evidence from search of defendant's residence. Court found defendant's consent to search was voluntary, and officers did not enter residence until written consent was given by defendant. 10/06/2005
-United States of America v. Johnson and Heidzig -- Report and Recommendation on defendants' motion to suppress, recommending motion be granted as to pre-Miranda statements, and denied as to post-Miranda statements and also as to cocaine found on defendant Heidzig's person. One key issue was whether officer's statement to defendant Heidzig that he wanted item she was concealing, and his directions to her to remove the item from her pants and place it on the floorboard of his vehicle, constituted questioning for purposes of Miranda. Court found that it did; however, court also found defendant Heidzig was undr de facto arrest at the time, and therefore, was subject to search incident to arrest, which would have led to discovery of drugs in any event.09/22/2005
-United States of America v. Keough -- Report and recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained in warrantless search of his residence. Court found Government failed to meet its burden to show defendant's consent to search was voluntary, and recommended motion be granted.07/21/2005
-United States of America v. King - report and recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress his confession, recommending motion be denied. Court found defendant was not promised leniency in return for information, and he was not mentally impaired by virtue of being under the influence of drugs at time of confession.07/11/2005
-United States of America v. Wendelsdorf -- Report and recommendation on motion to suppress evidence arising from execution of search warrant at defendant's residence. Court found probable cause to support the warrant and recommended denial of motion.06/09/2005
-United States of America v. Aguilar-Barraza -- Report and recommendation on defendants' motions to suppress evidence. Court found pre-Miranda questions about whether defendant was in possession of drugs were intended to elicit incriminating statements and should be suppressed. Court found no constitutional infirmity in search of defendant incident to arrest, search of defendant's vehicle, consent search of defendant's room in family home, search of second defendant's vehicle in parking area across alley from residence, search warrant for family residence, and defendant's post-Miranda statements.06/08/2005
-United States of America v. Wendelsdorf -- Report and recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss indictment on basis of pre-indictment delay, or alternatively to amend or strike one count for insufficiency of evidence. Court found defendant failed to show improper motive for pre-indictment delay and failed to show prejudice resulting therefrom. Court further found question of sufficiency of evidence is one for jury. Court recommended denying motion on all grounds. 06/03/2005
-United States of America v. Jones -- Report and recommendation on motion to suppress evidence. Defendant, who was stopped and then arrested for minor traffic violations, claimed officer lacked probable cause to detain him at scene to await drug dog, to arrest him, and to search his vehicle incident to arrest. Defendant also claimed search warrant application lacked probable cause because it failed to show connection between defendant and place to be searched. Court found officer had probable cause to stop, detain, and arrest defendant; to search vehicle incident to arrest; and for magistrate to find probable cause to issue search warrant.06/01/2005
-United States of America v. Wendelsdorf -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to transfer trial to another division within the district. Court recommends trial court reserve ruling on the motion for transfer until voir dire, or at least until responses are received to jury questionnaire.05/27/2005
-USA v. Hessman -- Report and recommendation, recommending denial of defendant's motion to dismiss indictment for speedy trial violation. Court found no speedy trial violation where neither party had notified the court, as previously ordered, of U.S. Supreme Court's denial of defendant's petition for writ of certiorari.05/20/2005
-United States of America v. Hinman, Dose and Weber (Report and recommendation on motions to dismiss Second Superseding Indictment, or to require plaintiff to elect between what defendants claimed to be multiplicitous counts. Defendants raised two double jeopardy arguments against indictment which charged them with violations of 18 USC 1035 and 18 USC 1001. Court rejected both arguments and recommended motions to dismiss be denied. Court also rejected one defendant's claim that indictment failed to charge defendants properly under 18 USC 1516.)04/22/2005
-United States of America v. Nairn (Report and recommendation on defendant's motion pursuant to 28 USC 2255. Defendant sought to withdraw guilty plea to one charge of indictment on basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. Court found counsel was ineffective in failing to recognize, and advise defendant of fact, that plaintiff's Rule 11 letter and court's recitation of elements of one charge were incorrect. Defendant pled guilty to charge of possessing firearms "during and in relation to" a drug crime, when indictment charged him with possessing firearms "in furtherance of" a drug crime. Court recommended defendant be allowed to withdraw guilty plea to that count of the indictment.)04/12/2005
-United States of America v. Summers (Report and recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss indictment for violation of Sixth Amendment right to speedy trial. Applying Barker v. Wingo, court found approximately one-year delay between indictment and defndant's arrest gave rise to presumption of prejudice; delay was due to plaintiff's negligence; defendant had asserted his right timely; and delay had prejudiced defendant's ability to defend against the charges. Finding all four Barker factors weighed in defendant's favor, court recommended dismissal of indictment.)03/18/2005
-USA v. Ortiz-Martinez (Report and recommendation that defendant's motion to dismiss be denied. Defendant sought dismissal of Indictment for violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(a) requirements that he be brought before a magistrate judge "without unreasonable delay." Court found defendant was in state custody until one day before his initial appearance, and defendant failed to show any prejudice from delay in arresting him on federal charges and bringing him to federal court.)03/07/2005
-USA v. Lee (Report and recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Court found defendant's companion had expectation of privacy in motel room and right to consent to search of motel room; officers' forced entry into motel room occupied by defendant was warranted based on outstanding arrest warrant and on exigent circumstances; search of motel room was valid based on companion's consent to search. Court recommended defendant's motion to suppress be denied.)02/23/2005
-USA v. Dose, et al. (Report and recommendation on numerous motions challenging sufficiency of Superseding Indictment. In light of 1/12/05 Supreme Court decision in Booker and Fanfan, court recommended defendants' motions to strike "Notice of Additional Relevant Facts" from indictment be granted (withdrawing prior R&R to the contrary). Court recommended denying motions to dismiss indictment or require Government to elect between charging defendants under 18 USC 1001 and 18 USC 1035 on basis of double jeopardy; court found Congress intended that conduct may be punishable under both sections. Court recommended striking fraud allegations for lack of specificity, but otherwise recommended denying motion to dismiss for failure to state an offense. Court recommended denying motion to suppress and in limine to prevent introduction of evidence derived from interview between corporation's attorney and defendant Hinman; court found no attorney-client privilege existed between attorney and defendant.)01/12/2005
-United States v. Piedra (Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained in stop and search of vehicle he was driving. Court found 1. defendant had standing to challenge search of vehicle he was driving with owner's permission; 2. defendant did not commit traffic violation that would provide probable cause for stop of vehicle; but 3. officers had reasonable suspicion that vehicle was involved in criminal activity, and therefore stop of vehicle was valid; and 4. officers were permitted to search passenger compartment of vehicle incident to defendant's arrest for driving without a license. Court recommended motion be denied.)12/15/2004
-United States of America v. Felix Aguin-Guerra (Report and recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress un-Mirandized statements he made to USICE agents. Agents interviewed defendant at jail after his arrest on traffic charges. Court found agents' questioning, without advising defendant of his rights, violated Miranda, and did not fall within "routine booking exception." Court recommended suppression of defendant's statements regarding his citizenship and immigration status.)08/20/2004
-United States v. Spencer (Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during execution of search warrant at his residence. Court found warrant affiant's combination of police officer informant and concerned citizen informant on same page was not fatal to probable cause determination. Court further found warrant's incorporation by reference of attachment that described place to be searched with particularity, and presence of complete warrant, including attachment, at scene of search, did not violate defendant's Fourth Amendment rights pursuant to Groh v. Ramirez, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 1284, 157 L.Ed.2d 1068 (2004). Court found that even if defendant's rights were violated by officers' failure to serve him with complete copy of warrant at time of search. Leon good faith exception to exclusionary rule was applicable because officers relied in good faith on warrant that was supported by ample probable cause.)08/11/2004
-United States of America v. Kunkel (Report and recommendation on motion to suppress evidence obtained during cursory search of premises incident to defendant's arrest. Court found an evidentiary hearing was not warranted because it was clear suppression was improper as a matter of law. Court held officers performed a proper protective sweep of premises incident to defendant's arrest, and recommended the motion be denied.)07/15/2004
-United States v. Barnett (Report and Recommendation on motions filed by defendant charged with violations of federal firearms laws (including charge under 18 U.S.C. section 924(c)), seeking dismissal of Superseding Indictment on grounds of (1) lack of specificity, (2) unconstitutional vagueness, (3) selective or vindictive prosecution. Issues discussed include whether indictment must state defendant had knowledge of specific characteristics of sawed-off shotgun that make it a "destructive device," possession of sawed-off shotgun as "crime of violence" for purposes of sction 924(c) offense; scienter requirement for section 5861 violations; elements of offence under section 922(g)(3), and constitutionality of that section; elements of prima facie case of selective prosecution; and showing necessary to obtain discovery on issue of selective prosecution.)04/09/2004
-United States of America v. Darrian Jordan and Mendoor Smith (Report and Recommendation on motion to suppress evidence. Court found defendants failed to make substantial preliminary showing necessary to obtain a Franks hearing, and in any event, probable cause existed to issue search warrant. Court also found defendant Jordan ws searched incident to arrest, not pursuant to warrant. Recommends motions and request for evidentiary hearing be denied.)03/16/2004
-United States of America v. Johnson (Report and Recommendation on motion to suppress evidence, filed by defendant Brion Dodd Johnson. Court found defendant failed to make substantial preliminary showing necessary to obtain a Franks hearing, and recommended defendant's motion and request for hearing be denied.)03/16/2004
-United States of America v. Barnett (Report and recommendation on two motions to dismiss in case charging various firearms violations. Defendant challenged indictment on basis of lack of specificity and unconstitutional vagueness. In finding indictment sufficient to allege an offense warranting conviction, court discussed: requirements for an indictment; elements of offense under 18 USC section 924(c); inherently dangerous nature of sawed-off shotgun; whether indictment must allege specific characteristics of weapon that make it a "destructive device;" and scienter requirements of 924(c). Court recommended reserving ruling until close of evidence at trial on challenge based on unconstitutional vagueness of 18 USC section 922(g) (noting nature of challege is statute's failure to define "unlawful user of a controlled substance").03/11/2004
-United States of America v. Vaudt (R&R on defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during execution of state search warrant. Court found warrant application contained sufficient facts to support magistrate's finding of probable cause, and in any event, even if warrant was not supported by probable cause, officers relied on warrant reasonably and in good faith, applying United States v. Leon.)02/19/2004
-United States of America v. Betterton (R&R on defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized during inventory search after vehicle was impounded. Defendant was stopped for equipment violation (cracked windshield). He was arrested when officer learned he was driving under suspension. No one else was present to move the vehicle from the roadway, and it was stopped in a "no parking" zone, creating a traffic hazard. Inventory search was performed following the impoundment, pursuant to departmental policy. Court recommended motion to suppress be denied, finding impoundment and subsequent inventory search were lawful, and nothing that in any event, officers could have searched the vehicle incident to Defendant's arrest.)11/24/2003
-United States of America v. Elmer Taylor (R&R recommending denial of majority of motion to suppress evidence in criminal case. Defendant claimed he was not competent to understand and enter into a plea agreement, and factual stipulations in the plea agreement should not be admissible against him at trial. He also sought to suppress evidence arising from a stop and subsequent search of a vehicle, and statements he made on the night of his arrest. Court discussed requiements for voluntary, knowing, and competent waiver by a defendant of the plea-statement protections provided by Fed. R. Evid. 410.)10/22/2003
-United States of America v. Howard (R&R recommending denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Issues: officers' right to do protective frisk for weapons, discussing Terry v. Ohio and United States v. Roggeman; officers' authority to enter motel room to execute arrest warrant, discussing Payton v. New York and United States v. Junkman; "public safety exception" to Miranda requirements)08/14/2003
-United States of America v. Saucillo (R&R recommending denial of defendant's motion to suppress in drug distribution case. Defendant threw drugs out of second-story window onto ground in rear of multi-family dwelling. Curtilage was unfenced and totally open to public access. Court found defendant consented to search of apartment, and he had no legitimate expectation of privacy in curtilage of multi-family dwelling.)05/13/2003
-United States of America v. Hessman (Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress. Officer faxed unsigned, unsworn search warrant application and affidavit to State magistrate at out-of-town hotel. Magistrate signed warrant and faxed it back to officer. Officer was sworn and signed application and affidavit next morning, after search was concluded and defendant had been arrested. Court found search warrant based on unsigned, unsworn application and affidavit was invalid under Fourth Amendment. Court also found Leon good faith exception did not apply, and recommended defendant's post-arrest statements be suppressed under Wong Sun exclusionary rule.)04/14/2003
-United States of America v. Jay Del Drahota (R&R on several pretrial motions in this drug conspiracy case. Of particular interest is defendant's claim that State authorities promised him immunity if he cooperated with law enforcement in connection with the prosecution of another individual. Although finding the State's grant of immunity could not bind federal authorities, the court nevertheless found defendant's confession was involuntary, and recommended Kastigar hearing to determine whether untainted evidence exists to support the indictment. Other issues discussed include standards for wavier of right to counsel by defendant appearing pro se; waiver of Miranda rights; standards for dismissal based on pre-indictment delay.)03/20/2003
-United States v. Ketzeback (R&R recommending defendant's motion to suppress be granted due to officers' reckless or intentional omission from search warrant application of information impacting informant's credibility. Issues: requirements for Franks hearing; reliance on confidential or anonymous informants; Leon analysis)02/10/2003
Hide details for Social Security CasesSocial Security Cases
-Toye v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for supplemental security income. In recommending remand for further proceedings, court found that the ALJ erred in considering the claimant's daily living activities in determining his credibility. 06/01/2012
-Miller v. Astrue -- Order remanding under sixth sentence of 42 USC 405(g) for ALJ to consider additional evidence. Court found that good cause existed for not submitting new, material evidence to ALJ that reasonably would have changed ALJ's decision.04/05/2012
-Mosley 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 reversed Commissioner's decision and remanded for an award of benefits because substantial evidence did not support ALJ's adverse determination of claimant's credibility.03/29/2012
-Bell v. Astrue -- Order granting in part plaintiff's motion for remand under sixth sentence of 42 USC 405(g) for ALJ to consider additional evidence attached to plaintiff's motion. Court found that evidence was new and material and that plaintiff showed good cause for not incorporating it in the administrative record.02/10/2012
-Rahe v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found that ALJ's failure to submit claimant's requested supplemental post-hearing interrogatories to vocational expert denied claimant the opportunity to cross-examine the expert, violating claimant's right to due process.12/14/2011
-Higginbottom v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for supplemental security income. Court found that physician assistant's opinion submitted to the Appeals Council after the ALJ's decision was new, material evidence warranting consideration by the ALJ pursuant to Social Security Ruling 06-3p. Court further recommended remand for the ALJ to weigh evidence of claimant's GAF scores and to detemrine whether the scores indicated an inability to work. 11/30/2011
-Dawdy v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. In recommending remand for further proceedings, court found that ALJ (1) did not articulate reason to discount evidence of claimant's GAF score that, according to vocational expert, would preclude him from working and (2) did not articulate weight given to the opinion of claimant's treating physician that claimant would miss two days of work per month, which would preclude claimant from competitive employment, according to the vocational expert. 10/25/2011
-Swett v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Court found that substantial evidence in the record as a whole supported ALJ's assessment of claimant's credibility and residual functional capacity.08/31/2011
-Tippie v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found substantial evidence supported Commissioner's decision that claimant was not disabled.06/08/2011
-Sangel v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found substantial evidence supported Commissioner's decision that claimant was not disabled.05/23/2011
-Shaver v. Astrue -- Order granting defendant's motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and dismissing plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. Court found that the complaint was untimely filed because it was filed more than sixty days after plaintiff presumptively received notice of the Appeals Council's denial of review. Further, circumstances warranting equitable tolling of the sixty-day deadline were absent, and the filing of a civil cover sheet by itself did not constitute the filing of a complaint.05/12/2011
-Gustin v. Astrue -- Order granting in part and denying in part motion for attorney fees under EAJA. Plaintiff was a prevailing party, and the Commissioner's position was not substantially justified. Postage related to service of process was reimbursable as an expense under EAJA and not a a cost. Plaintiff's filing fee was taxable as a cost and payable by the Treasury and not by the Social Security Adminsitration.04/19/2011
-Clark v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability benefits. Court found substantial evidence supported the ALJ's decision that claimant was not disabled due to back pain.03/14/2011
-Rittenhouse 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 benefits. Court found substantial evidence supported the ALJ's decision that claimant was not disabled due to rheumatoid arthritis.03/04/2011
-Gustin v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of decision denying claimant's applications for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ erred in failing to give controlling weight to opinion of claimant's treating rheumatologist, who opined claimant would e unable to work full-time.02/28/2011
-Wagner v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits. In recommending remand for further proceedings, the Court found ALJ erred in failing to discuss fully her finding that the claimant's condition did not meet Listing 1.04(a), spinal disorders, and in developing the record fully and fairly on the issue of the claimant's gastrointestinal disorder.01/26/2011
-Bendlin 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 benefits. Court found the record evidence could support two inconsistent conclusions, one of which was the Commissioner's conclusion that claimant was not disabled, and therefore the Commissioner's decision was affirmed.01/21/2011
-Cuvelier v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on parties' joint motion for sentence four remand. Court found entry of judgment is the 'substantive ruling' required in order to grant a sentence four remand, and recommended the motion be granted without full briefing and review of the entire administrative record.09/14/2010
-Lindstrom v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found ALJ erred in failing to comply with previous remand order in connection with his decision that claimant's substance abuse was a material contributing factor in the disability determination.09/01/2010
-Burroughs v. Astrue -- Order on motion for sentence four remand. Court found full review of the record is unnecessary to grant joint motion for sentence four remand, as long as the remand order expressly reverses the Commissioner's decision and directs entry of judgment.09/01/2010
-Meyerhoff v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of Title XVI Supplemental Security Income benefits. Court found ALJ erred in failing to include all of claimant's limitations in hypothetical question to vocational expert and in the ALJ's RFC determination, and recommended remand to determine claimant's disability onset date and for calculation and award of benefits.07/26/2010
-Polson v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found substantial evidence supported Commissioner's decision that claimant was not disabled.07/19/2010
-Hovenga v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ had failed to make a complete and proper credibility analysis and failed to ask clear hypothetical questions, and Appeals Council erred in failing to consider a medical source statement submitted after the ALJ's decision. Case remanded for further development of the record. 06/07/2010
-Bloom v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Court found substantial evidence in the record supported the ALJ's decision that the claimant was not disabled. 06/02/2010
-Huisman v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found ALJ's residual functional capacity assessment was not supported by the record, and ALJ failed to make a proper credibility analysis. Case remanded for further proceedings.04/21/2010
-Evers v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of ALJ's denial of claimant's applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Court found ALJ gave appropriate weight to treating physicians' opinions, properly evaluated claimant's Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scores, was not required to obtain vocational expert testimony, and properly evaluated claimant's credibility.04/20/2010
-Havil v. Astrue -- Judicial review of decisions denying plaintiff's applications for disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits under the Social Security Act. After two remands for further proceedings, court found ALJ still had erred in failing to obtain proper vocational expert testimony to support decision that plaintiff was not disabled. Court found vocational expert's testimony was not adequately supported by evidence in the record, and further found the record evidence supported an immediate award of benefits.03/03/2010
-Kliment v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of applications for disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits under the Social Security Act. Court recommended remand for further proceedings, finding the ALJ erred in failing to give proper consideration to opinions of examining psychologists, and in posing an improper hypothetical question to vocational expert.02/23/2010
-Wellenstein v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of Title II disability insurance and Title XVI supplement security income benefits. Court found ALJ gave appropriate weight to opinions of claimant's doctor and therapist, but ALJ failed to conduct a complete credibility analysis, making remand appropriate.01/26/2010
-Lynch v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of applications for disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits. Court found substantial evidence supported the ALJ's decision that claimant was not disabled, and recommended the Commissioner's decision be affirmed.12/04/2009
-Vanbogart v. Astrue -- Order denying motion for EAJA fees as untimely.11/17/2009
-Gacke v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Court found substantial evidence supported the Commissioner's decision that claimant was not disabled due to obesity, or difficulties with concentration, persistence, or pace.09/28/2009
-Wensel v. Astrue -- Order on motion of plaintiff's counsel for attorney's fees pursuant to 42 USC 406(b). Court found fee equal to 25% of past-due benefits was excessive under the Gisbrecht factors, and reduced the fee award to approximately 18.6% of the past-due benefits.09/11/2009
-Cole v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Court found ALJ misinterpreted the evidence of record, and held the record did not contain substantial evidence to support the Commissioner's decision that the claimant was not disabled due to muscular dystrophy and related symptoms. 09/02/2009
-Carver v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of applications for Title II disability insurance and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court reversed Commissioner's decision, finding claimant disabled due to ongoing pain from previously broken ankle; arthritis in lower back, right ankle, and foot; and pain in right ankle, back, and hip.08/07/2009
-Matheis v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of applications for Title II disability insurance and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ erred in substituting his own opinions for those of claimant's treating physician, and ALJ based his decision on speculation rather than on the evidence of record. 07/20/2009
-Vanbogart v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order reversing Commissioner's denial of Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found plaintiff's migraine headaches would cause her ot miss three or more days of work per month, rendering her disabled.07/13/2009
-Blazek v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found overwhelming evidence supported Commissioner's decision that claimant was not disabled.05/27/2009
-Ptikin v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of Title II disabilty insurance benefits. In reversing and remanding for immediate finding of disability, court found the evidence of record uniformly indicated claimant suffered from severe mental impairment due to his schizophrenia, and he could not be expected to engage in any gainful employment.05/06/2009
-Fink v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability benefits. Court found ALJ properly weighed the medical evidence, and substantial evidence supported the Commissioner's decision that the claimant was not disabled.04/17/2009
-Kunert v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found that although claimant's condition may have worsened to the point of disability since the expiration of her insured status, the record contained substantial evidence to support the Commissioner's decision that claimant was not disabled due to back pain or mental health problems prior to her date last insured.04/08/2009
-Moriarity v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found Commissioner erred in failing to give proper consideration and weight to treating psychiatrist's opinion that claimant's bipolar disorder would prevent her from working. 04/07/2009
-Maxon v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of applications for Title II disability insurance and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ erred in failing to give proper weight to treating physician's opinion and in posting an inaccurate hypothetical question to the vocational expert. Case remanded for award of benefits from onset date to date of plaintiff's back surgery, and for further development of the record regarding plaintiff's impairments following her surgery. 03/27/2009
-Volkert v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found ALJ failed to develop the record fully and fairly with regard to claimant's mental impairments, and remanded case for further proceedings. 03/23/2009
-Miller v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on review of decision denying plaintiff's application for Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found substantial evidence supported the Commissioner's decision that Miller was not disabled. 03/23/2009
-Rohde v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability benefits. In affirming the Commissioner's denial of benefits, Court found claimant's subjective complaints of disabling back and leg pain were inconsistent with the record as a whole.03/12/2009
-Jayson Johnson v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of applications for disability insurance and supplemental security insurance benefits. Court affirmed Commissioner's decision that substance abuse is a material factor in the plaintiff's disability. 02/24/2009
-Franks v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found ALJ erred in discounting claimant's subjective complaints, where claimant failed to seek medical treatment for many years due to doctors' advice that her condition, an ateriovenous malformation, was untreatable.12/15/2008
-Gray v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found ALJ and Appeals Council erred in giving insufficient weight to opinions of treating physician and nurse practitioner regarding claimant's limitations.11/20/2008
-Lwis v. Astrue - Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability benefits. Court found claimant failed to provide adequate evidence that she was disabled prior to her date last insured of December 31, 1997.11/07/2008
-Malmquist v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of Title II disability insurance and Title XVI Supplemental Security income benefits. Court found ALJ erred in finding substance abuse was a material factor contributing to claimant's disability, but further found the record evidence was insufficient with regard to claimant's mental abilities to support the Commissioner's decision.11/06/2008
-Combs v. Astrue - Order denying motion for supplemental attorney's fees for services performed at the administrative level. Court held administrative fees are determinable only by the agency, not by the courts.10/16/2008
-Joran v. Astrue - Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of Title II disability insurance and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ failed to give proper weight to treating physician's opinions, and vocational expert's response to hypothetical question that did not include limitations suggested by treating physician could not support denial of benefits. Case reversed and remanded for further proceedings.10/15/2008
-Glawatz v. Astrue -- Order granting plaintiff's motion to remand for consideration of further evidence pursuant to sentence six of 42 USC 405(g).08/21/2008
-Jensen v. Astrue - Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of applications for Title II disability insurance and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Taking into account medical records that were presented to Appeals Council, but were not before the ALJ at the time of his decision, court found claimant disabled due to mental impairments, but further found claimant failed to show his disability began prior to expiration of his insured status for Title II purposes. 07/30/2008
-Erickson v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review from denial of Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ erred in failing to give proper weight to opinions of treating physician, and in failing to appreciate the debilitating effects of fibromyalgia.07/16/2008
-Handke ex rel. Estate of Davis v. Astrue - Order on motion for attorney's fees and costs under Equal Access to Justice Act and 42 USC 406(b)05/16/2008
Hide details for Judge Jon Stuart ScolesJudge Jon Stuart Scoles
Hide details for CivilCivil
-Greenhaw v. City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa -- Motion to Strike (Issue: strike expert witness testimony)02/17/2009
-EEOC v. CRST -- Motion to Compel (Issues: Attorney-client privilege, Work-product, 30(b)(6) depos)01/20/2009
-Pearson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. -- R&R; ERISA, Accidental Death Benefits01/06/2009
-Stillmunkes v. Givaudan Flavors Corp, et al (Motion for leave to amend; [Rule 15(a) and Rule 16(a) discussed.)12/10/2008
-Russell A. Folkers v. City of Waterloo, Iowa, Darrel Johnson, & Maria Tiller -- Summary Judgment Motion. Issues: Deprivation of Constitutional Rights: Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment (procedural due process and substantial due process)10/27/2008
-EEOC (Plaintiff) & Boot, Grant, Koffett, Peeples, Starke, & Thomas (Plaintiffs/Interveners) v CRST Van Expedited, Inc. (Defendant) -- Motion to Intervene (Issues: Timeliness and futility of the proposed Complaint included with the motion)09/26/2008
-Thompson, Hinrichsen, Fogel, Alm, & Boe v. United Transportation Union--Motion to Amend Complaint. Issues: Tmeliness and Futility (Preemption and Duty of Fair Representation)09/25/2008
-Kyle Chyma v. Tama County School Board, Larry Molachek, Steve Burr, and Ernie Tomlinson (motion for summary judgment--Issues: (1) Due Process Violated, (2) First Amendment Rights, (3) Section 1983 Claim Based on FERPA, (4) Compliance of Iowa Code Section 282.4)09/08/2008
-John Cyril Lapid Buenaventura v. Jerry Burt, Warden--Report and Recommendation (Right to consular notification, Sufficiency of the evidence, Ineffective assistance of counsel (exclusion of harassment and vandalism evidence and failure to investigate)08/29/2008
-Candy Bailey v. Komatsu Forklift U.S.A., Inc. -- Deadline for Completion of Discovery07/07/2008
-American Family Ins. v. Robert Miell -- Post-Trial Motions: new trial (testimony & other "bad acts," punitive damage instruction); judgment as a matter of law or in the alternative to amend judgment (judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Iowa Code Sec. 515.101, punitive damages award "unconstitutionally excessive?); attorney fees; bill of costs)07/01/2008
-Industrial Risk Insurers v. D.C. Taylor Company -- Motion to Compel (Issues: timeliness of the motion; conference between the attorneys; waiver of objections; merits of objections)05/28/2008
-Lee Borntrager, et al v. Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund--Motions for Summary Judgment (trust agreement in violation of fed. law?; arbitrary & capricious actions?; bad faith or improper motive?)04/22/2008
-Rayburn v. Wady Industries, Inc.--Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (wrongful discharge in violation of public policy)04/10/2008
-Lewis v. J&M P'ship, F&F Inv, Air Mak & E. James Freyberger-Ruling on Motion to Extend Time (failure to obtain extension of time the result of excusable neglect, showing of good cause to extend pleadings deadline)04/04/2008
-International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America and United Auto Workers Local 13 v. Rousselot, Inc. (motions for summary judgment--compel arbitration and attorney fees)02/29/2008
-McGowan v. Soy Basics (order for judgment--attorney fees)02/06/2008
-Flynn v. Farmer Masonry, Inc. and Dwayne Farmer, Individually (motion to quash lien on real estate; homestead exemption, Iowa law)02/06/2008
-Industrial Risk Insurers et al v. DC Taylor Co. (contested motion for leave to amend) 01/04/2008
-USA vs. Cashier’s Check in the Amount of Five Hundred Nineteen Thousand Four Hundred Eighty-Six Dollars and Twelve Cents $519,486.12) and Cashier’s Check in the Amount of Twenty-One Thousand Eight Hundred Thirteen Dollars and Eighty-Eight Cents ($21,813.88) (motion to strike answer)12/24/2007
-James G. Thomas, Kerry Thomas, Gregory Norlin, Nancy Norlin and Sierra Club vs. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, and John B. Askew, Regional Administrator, Region VII OF The United States Environmental Protection Agency (Report and Recommendation re whether EPA properly approved Iowa's Section 303(d) list)12/17/2007
-Roger Walters vs. Purdential Insurance Company of America (Report and Recommendation--ERISA--long-term disability benefits)11/30/2007
-Jason Paul Annis vs. City of Welwein; Chief Jeremy Logan; David Bloem; and Ronald Voshell, Individually and in their official capacities (application to depose federal inmate)11/26/2007
-Robert Rakes,Robert Hollander, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Life Investors Insurance Company of America (motion; amended answer)11/09/2007
-Richard L. McGowan, LTD., Inc., vs. Soy Basics, L.L.C. (bench trial, breach of contract)11/08/2007
-Walter Junior Hoskins, III vs. Cornell Smith, Warden of Fort Dodge Correctional Facility of Iowa's Department of Corrections (Report and Recommendation on motion for evidentiary hearing & expand record, illegal search, identity of confidential informant)10/30/2007
-Russell A. Folkers vs. City of Waterloo, Iowa, Darrel Johnson, in his individual capacity and as Animal Control Officer for City of Waterloo, Iowa, and Maria Tiller, in her individual capacity and as Animal Control Officer for the City of Waterloo, Iowa (Report and Recommendation re preliminary injunction--dangerous dog)10/12/2007
-Christine Pospisil vs. O'Reilly Automotive, Inc., Randy Swaim, and Jon Workman (sex discrimination, retaliation)10/05/2007
-Earl Harrison and Mariam P. Harrison vs. Rockwell Collins, Inc., Aetna Life Insurance Comany, and Rockwell Collins Employee Health Plan Number 700 (denial of benefits for hospital bills)09/25/2007
-Transamerica Life Insurance Company, Western Reserve Life Assurance Co. of Ohio, and Transamerica Financial Life Insurance Company, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants, vs. Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, Defendant/Counterclaimant (motion to compel--completely answer interrogatory)09/24/2007
-Pincheck, L.C. vs. Tempo Payments, Inc. (motion to strike affirmative defenses)08/30/2007
-David Goings, Lewine Boucher-Goings, and Juanita Goings vs. Chickasaw County; Martin Larsen, Individually and in his official capacity; Todd Miller, Individually and in his official capacity; and City of Nashua (motion to strike designation of experts)08/27/2007
-James R. Woelfel vs. Jerry Burt, Warden, Anamosa State Penitentiary (Report and Recommendation re 2254, exhaustion, ineffective assistance of counsel, double jeopardy)08/15/2007
-Moore Development, LTD., vs. M.G. Midwest, Incl, d/b/a Movie Gallery; a/k/a Movie Gallery US, LLC; a/k/a Movie Gallery US, Inc. (breach of contract, promissory/equitable estoppel, intentional interference with prospective business relations)08/13/2007
-Cletus F. Johnson, Petitioner vs Jerry Burt, Warden, Respondent (Report and Recommendation re 2254, prosecutorial misconduct, Batson claim)07/30/2007
-CNH Capital America LLC. vs. Tim McCandless, d/b/a McCandless Farms (motion in limine-contract)06/22/2007
-American Family Mutual Insurance Company vs Robert Miell Robert Miell vs Brett Throlson and Brett Throlson Agency, INC. (motion for summary judgment on negligence, contribution, & indemnification)05/23/2007
-CNH Capital America LLC vs. Tim McCandless, d/b/a McCandless Farms (breach of contract, aiding & abetting, conspiracy, fraudulent misrepresentation)05/18/2007
-Pamela R. Reed vs. Cedar County and Cedar County Scheriff, Daniel Hannes M. Leanne Tyler, Claimant (attorney lien)05/07/2007
-Larry Cirksena vs. Farmers Cooperative Company; Daniel Scott Forey, Individually and in his official capacity as General Manager, and James Edward Hawkins, Individually and in his official capacity as Department Manager (age discrimination)04/30/2007
Hide details for CriminalCriminal
-US v. Daniel Lee Wilson -- R&R; Motion to Suppress-Issues: Fourth Amendment: Entry onto Curtilage, Entry into Porch01/14/2009
-US v. Lesean D. Hardy -- R&R; Motion to Suppress-Issues: Legality of Pat-Down Search, Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Analysis01/05/2009
-US v. Edward Frank Brewer & Rosina Orlantha Rhodes -- R&R; Motions to Suppress-Issues: Fourth Amendment: Traffic Stop; Fifth Amendment: Voluntary Statements01/05/2009
-United States v. Mishan Bradford (R&R--Motion to Suppress (Fourth Amendment; Warrantless Search)08/12/2008
-USA v. Daniel Binion--R&R (motions to suppress evidence-4th Amendment [probable cause for traffic stop and pat-down search] & 5th Amendment [voluntary statement made after refusal to waive Miranda rights])05/06/2008
-USA v. Thomas Ray Reinhart (R&R on motion to suppress--entry into 3rd-party residence on arrest warrant, protective sweep, Franks hearing, Leon good-faith exception)04/08/2008
-US v. Jon Young (R&R on Motion to Suppress--request for counsel)04/03/2008
-US v. John Bolden, Zechariah Benjamin, Nell Brocks, Clarence Ross, III, & Wilson Cleaves (Motion to Sever--Bruton issue)03/07/2008
-USA v. Tony Eugene Goodson (R&R on motion to withdraw guilty plea)02/19/2008
-USA v. Edmond Louis Cote (R&R on motion to suppress evidence (probable cause determination supported by affidavit and sworn oral testimony, Leon good-faith exception)02/06/2008
-USA v. Mack Arthur Davis, Jr. (Report and Recommendation on motion to suppress statements--voluntary waiver of Miranda rights and voluntary statement to police)01/16/2008
-USA v. John Anthony Echols, Jr. (motion to set aside section 851 notice)01/15/2008
-USA vs. John Shuler and Heather Fiorella (Report and Recommendation on motion to suppress, search of residence)09/18/2007
-USA vs. Robert Earl Cole, Jr. (Report and Recommendation on motion to suppress; seizure, voluntary consent urine sample)08/20/2007
-USA vs. Leland Richard Vinton (motion to quash subpoena for billing statement)08/16/2007
-USA vs. Tony Eugene Goodson (conflict of interest for attorneys)08/07/2007
-USA vs. Brook Allen Walton (Report and Recommendation on motion to suppress--Franks case)07/09/2007
-USA vs. Greg Alan Johnson (Report and Recommendation on involuntary treatment of psychotropic medication to restore competency for trial)05/17/2007
-USA vs. Abdel-Ilah Elmardoudi (allow deposition of witness)04/30/2007
Hide details for Judge Donald E. O'BrienJudge Donald E. O'Brien
Hide details for CivilCivil
-Mark v. Burger (state prisoner's action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254: order granting relief on "Brady" claims)08/31/2006
Hide details for Judge Edward J McManusJudge Edward J McManus
Hide details for CivilCivil
-Eugene Nelson v Charles City Comm. School Dist.01/18/2017
-Estate of Leighton Fitz01/18/2017
-James Robert Ernst III v Black Hawk County Jail, et al12/22/2016
-Eastern Iowa Plastics v PI, Inc.12/09/2016
-Minnesota Laweyers Mutual Ins. Co.11/29/2016
-Catherine Bohn v Cedar Rapids Community School District11/18/2016
-Eugene J Nelson v Charles City Community School District11/08/2016
-Lequita Ennard v Transamerica Corporation10/28/2016
-USA v $33,621.0008/17/2016
-Glenn McGhee v State of Iowa08/16/2016
-Na-Churs Plant Food v IRS08/16/2016
-Charleen Corrado v Life Investors Insurance Company08/11/2016
-USA v $33,621, et al07/29/2016
-Patrick James Sr vs Cedar Rapids, City of, Grant Rasmussen and Bruce Payne07/19/2016
-Randy Blanchard v. William Sperfslage07/05/2016
-Lequita Dennard, et al v. Aegon USA, et al07/05/2016
Hide details for Judge Leonard T. StrandJudge Leonard T. Strand
Hide details for CivilCivil
-TRUENORTH COMPANIES, LC, TRUENORTH PRINCIPALS, LC v. TRUNORTH WARRANTY PLANS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC Order on defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings on plaintiffs' mark dilution claim. The motion was procedurally improper under Rule 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings because defendant had not provided an answer to the allegations. It was also improper under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because defendant had already filed a Rule 12(b)(2) motion and its motion did not fall under the exceptions identified in Rule 12(g)(2). Nonetheless, the court determined that under the spirit of Rule 1, the motion was ripe for consideration. Court found that plaintiffs failed to state a plausible claim of mark dilution based on the fame element. Plaintiffs' allegations, if true, would support the mark's fame only with regard to a niche market and not the "general consuming public" as required under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c). Plaintiffs' mark dilution claim was dismissed with prejudice. 02/08/2018
-MERIDIAN MANUFACTURING, INC., vs. C&B MANUFACTURING, INC., d/b/a HITCHDOC Memorandum opinion and order on cross motions for summary judgment in patent case involving trailers for transporting bulk seed boxes. The court found that the plaintiff established infringement of multiple patent claims as a matter of law. 10/27/2017
-Roeder v. DIRECTV, et al. -- Memorandum opinion and order on cross motions for summary judgment. Court concluded there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether plaintiffs were independent contractors or employees of DIRECTV subject to the overtime requirements of the FLSA. Court also found that neither side had established they were entitled to judgment on application or non-application of the 7(i) exemption of the FLSA.01/13/2017
-Smith v. Smith, et al. -- Memorandum opinion and order accepting report and recommendation on defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's Section 1983 claims. Plaintiff alleged deliberate indifference to a serious medical need and failure to train based on his work assignment at a landfill. Court found there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff suffered an objectively serious medical need from his alleged exposure to bio-hazardous material and whether defendants were deliberately indifferent. Plaintiff also failed to demonstrate a fact issue on his failure to train claim. Court concluded defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the undisputed facts of each of these claims and granted defendants' motions for summary judgment.09/29/2016
-Zhou v. IBM -- Memorandum opinion and order on plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and restraining order. The court summarily denied the motion on grounds that it was based on claims and allegations that are not currently encompassed in plaintiff's complaint. The court noted that preliminary injunctive relief is not appropriate if there is no relationship between the proposed injunction and the claims that are pending in the case.03/11/2016
-Langenbau v. Med-Trans Corp. -- Memorandum opinion and order regarding the parties' evidentiary motions. The court addressed various motions to exclude expert witness opinions at trial and found with some limited exceptions, that the challenged opinions were not subject to exclusion. The court also denied plaintiffs' request for jury view of wreckage and denied a motion to strike a declaration filed in support of defendant's motion for partial summary judgment. . 03/09/2016
-Foster v. Anderson, et al. -- Memorandum opinion and order on defendants' motion for summary judgment. Court found there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding the care Foster received while committed to the care and custody of the Iowa Department of Corrections. As such, Court dismissed all claims and entered judgment in favor of the defendants and against Foster. 02/29/2016
-Barajas v. USA -- Post remand ruling on Barajas' 28 U.S.C. section 2255 petition. Although Judge O'Brien previously found that petitioner's trial counsel failed to advise petitioner about the collateral consequences of his plea, the Supreme Court decision in Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (2013) controls this case. In Chaidez the Supreme Court found that Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 360 (2010) announced a new rule, and under existing precedent, new rules are not applicable to cases that arose prior to the announcement of the new rule. Thus, because petitioner's case occurred before the Supreme Court announced its decision in Padilla, the petitioner is not entitled to Padilla type relief. Additionally Barajas' argument that Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) should not aply to federal prisoners is not supported by any Eighth Circuit precedent and is denied. Finally, neither Barajas' argument that Judge O'Brien made a secondary holding, or that Barajas received material misrepresentation, are supported by the record in this case and are denied. The petitioner is entilted to a certificate of appealability on the issues of whether Teague v. Lane applies to federal prisoners. 02/29/2016
-Stinton v. Old Republic Insurance Company -- Order on defendant's motion for summary judgment. Court found there were no genuine issues of material fact concerning the payment of uninsured motorist benefits. Court found that Archer Daniels Midland Alliance Nutrition, Inc., the company employing Mr. Stinton at the time of his death, had declined uninsured motorist coverage and as such, Mr. Stinton's estate was not entitled to any payments from the policy. Court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment. Judgment entered in favor of defendant Old Republic Insurance Company and against plaintiff Diane Stinton02/10/2016
-Margaret Foster v. Cerro Gordo County, an Iowa Municipal Corporation, et al. -- Order on the County Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Court found there were no genuine issues of material fact and that defendants had not been deliberately indifferent to Foster's serious medical need. Additionally, Court found defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Court delcines to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Foster's State law claims against County Defendants due to the failure of Foster to argue the claims should be retained even if the federal claims against County Defendants are dismissed as well as the fact that these claims do not arise from the same facts and circumstances of the federal claims remaining in this case. Court orders all claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. secton 1983 against the County Defendants (Cerro Gordo County, Kevin Pals, Shad Stoeffler, Terry Allen-Burns, Justin Faught, Chad Harkema, Rusty Pals, Brenda Crom, Marc Kappmeyer and "Additional Unidentified Cerro Gordo County Jail Staff") dismissed with prejudice. Court orders remaining state law claims alleged against County Defendants dismissed without prejudice. Court orders County Defendants dismissed from this action. 01/28/2016
-Jason Bringus v. Steve Elifrits -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion for summary judgment. Court found Bringus failed to exhaust the jail's grievance procedures. Court found Bringus failed to submit any admissible evidence illustrating a material dispute of fact, as such, Court recommends defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted.01/20/2016
-Adefris v. Wilson Trailer Company, et al. -- Report and Recommendation on defendants' motion to dismiss. Court found Adefris failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the Iowa Civil Rights Act and any claims of retaliatory discharge under Title VII or the ADA. Court found all claims of individual liability under Title VII and the ADA should be dismissed as the acts do not allow inidividual liability. Additionally Court found that Adefris failed to present a plausible claim for relief under race or national origin discrimination under Title VII and Section 1981. Court found Adefris did not state a claim for disability discrimination. Court found the complaint did not state a plausible claim for a hostile work environment. Court recommends all claims be dismissed except for (1) the ADA failure to accommodate claim, as against Wilson and (2) The Section 1981 retaliatory discharge claim, as against Wilson and Kreber. 01/12/2016
-Raveling v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al -- Memorandum opinion and order on defendants' motion for summary judgment. Court found Raveling failed to discredit defendants' reasons for discharging him. Additionally Court found that Raveling failed to show age motivated defendants' decision to discharge him. Court orders defendants' motion be granted with regard to all claims. 12/21/2015
-Lorenz v. Tyson Foods, Inc. -- Memorandum opinion and order on defendants' motion for summary judgment. Court found Lorenz established facts sufficient to raise a genuine issue as to whether the dismissal was motivated by age animus. Court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment. 12/03/2015
-Stokes v. Hacker and Anderson -- Report and Recommendation on defendants' unresisted motion for summary judgment. Court found, even when the evidence is considered in a light most favorable to plaintiff, he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, as a matter of law. As such, court found no genuine issues of material fact existed as to plaintiff's complaint. Court recommends the defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted. 11/18/2015
-Hanson v. Hagerty Insurance Agency, LLC and Essentia Insurance Co. -- Order on plaintiff's motion for leave to amend responses to defendants' requests for admissions. Court found that granting plaintiff's motion would allow the case to be heard and decided on its merits. Court found the defendants were unable to demonstrate prejudice following Hanson's failure to respond to requests. Court granted plaintiff's motion for leave to amend responses to defendants' request for admissions. 11/06/2015
-Lynch v. Custom Welding & Repair, et al. -- Order on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. Court found plaintiff failed to demonstrate defendants had violated the FDCPA as a matter of law and as such entered judgment in favor of defendants. Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on the remaining state law claims and dismissed them without prejudice. Court ordered plaintiff's motion for summary judgment denied in whole. Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment as to FDCPA claims and dismissed the remaining state law claims with prejudice. 11/06/2015
-Doss v. McKinney, et al. -- Report and Recommendation on defendants' motion for summary judgment. Court found that plaintiff failed to establish deliberate indifference to a serious medical need and as such defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on that claim. Court additionally found plaintiff failed to show retaliation and defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on that claim as well. Court recommended defendants' motion be granted as to both claims and the case be dismissed with prejudice. 11/04/2015
-Peterson v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., et al. -- Order on defendants' motion to compel discovery. Court found that plaintiff was unable to establish the sought after information was protected by the work product doctrine. As such, Court ordered plaintiff to comply with defendants' discovery request. 10/13/2015
-Behr, et al v. AADG, Inc. -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification and court authorized notice. Court granted plaintiffs' request for conditional class certification. Additionally court found the notice unfairly prejudiced AADG as to one part and ordered it be replaced in order to avoid prejudice. Court granted conditional class certification and ordered the notice to be modified. 10/06/2015
-Afshar v. WMG, L.C., et al -- Order denying plaintiff's motion for leave to amend pleadings. Court found that plaintiff's motion was untimely. Court found plaintiff was unable to show good cause for leave to amend the pleadings after the deadline to amend had lapsed. Court alternatively found defendants would be prejudiced by this late stage amendment. Court denied plaintiff's motion for leave to amend pleadings. 09/14/2015
-Liguria Foods, Inc. v. Griffith Laboratories, Inc. -- Order on plaintiff's motion to compel the production of documents and information from defendant. Court found that plaintiff had made a showing that it was likely the defendant possessed the requested documents. Court ordered production of any responsive documents in defendant's possession. 08/24/2015
-Hillman v. Wagers, et al. -- Report and Recommendation on defendants' motion for summary judgment. Court found defendants have accurately described the applicable law and have properly applied that law to the undisputed material facts. Court found that the record, even if viewed in a light most favorably to the plaintiff, fails to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights and whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Court granted the motion for summary judgment and ordered the judgment be entered against plaintiff in favor of defendants. 08/20/2015
-Xcentric Ventures v. Smith -- Report and Recommendation on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. The court found that plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the defendant, a county prosecutor, has used his authority to retaliate against them for the exercise of their First Amendment rights. The court also found that the other factors relevant to the consideration of a motion for preliminary injunction weigh in favor of relief. As such, the court recommended the issuance of a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo pending trial on the merits. 08/19/2015
-Stokes v. Hacker -- Order on defendant's motion to set aside default entry and motion to set aside default judgment. Court determined that good cause existed to set aside the clerk's entry of default due to the blameworthiness of both parties in allowing this default to occur. Court determined that plaintiff was not prejudiced by this delay. Court also found that the motion to set aside default judgment was moot after setting aside the clerk's entry of default. Motion was denied in part and granted in part. 08/17/2015
-Welsh v. Andrews, et al. -- Report and Recommendation on defendants' motion to dismiss. Court found there were no genuine issues of material fact regrding Welsh's excessive force claim. Court also found the use of pepper spray, under the circumstances, was not used maliciously, did not cause the type of injury required for an Eighth Amendment claim and was reasonable. Court concluded Welsh failed to exhaust all available administrative remedies prior to filing the lawsuit. Court further found prison staff and officials were entitled to qualified immunity and the Iowa Department of Corrections was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Court recommdnded the motion to dismiss be granted with respect to all claims. 06/30/2015
-JTV Manufacturing, Inc. v. Braketown USA, Inc., et al -- Memorandum Opinion and Order denying third-party defendant's motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens. Court found the forum-selection clause was not reasonably communicated and freely negotiated and therefore, did not become a part of the parties' agreement. Court found the private interest and public interest factors weighed against dismissal and Antil S.p.A. did not demonstrate that the case presented an exceptional circumstance necessary to justify dismissal due to forum non conveniens. Court denied third-party defendant's motion to dismiss. 06/23/2015
-United States v. Thirty-Two Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Dollars and Fifty-Six Cents ($32,820.56) in United States Currency -- Order on claimants' motion for attorney fees, costs and interest. Court found claimants were not entitled to attorney fees because claimants did not substantially prevail under CAFRA. Court concluded a voluntary dismissal without prejudice did not entitle claimants to prevailing party status, as there was no material alteration of the parties' legal relationship. Nor were the claimants entitled to reconsideration of the order to dismiss. Court found that the claimants were entitlted to certain court costs pursuant to the court's inherent authority to assess such costs under Section 1920. Claimants' motion was denied in part and granted in part. 05/22/2015
-Bruhn Farms Joint Venture v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company -- Memorandum opinion and order on defendant's motion for summary judgment. Court found there were no genuine issues of material facts relating to plaintiff's breach of contract claim or bad faith claim. Court found plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of any genuine issues of material fact as to whether defendant violated Section 3(c) of the insurance policy's general provisions. Court also found that plaintiff's other alleged breaches of the insurance policy were little more than customer-service related complaints. Court found plaintiff did not demonstrate that defendant lacked a reasonable basis for refusing to pay the higher amount plaintiff demanded. Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted. 05/08/2015
-Oyens Feed & Supply, Inc. v. Primebank and Crooked Creek Corp. v. Primebank and Oyens Feed & Supply, Inc. -- Report and Recommendation on appeal from a decision and judgment entered by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Iowa. Court concluded two questions of statutory construction should be certified to the Iowa Supreme Court for resolution.05/05/2015
-Younie v. City of Hartley, Iowa -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on defendant's motion to dismiss. Court found there is federal question subject matter jurisdiction over Count I. Court found plaintiff sufficiently plead a claim for retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Court also found that there is supplemental jurisdiction over Counts II, III and IV. Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is denied. 04/09/2015
-JTV Manufacturing, Inc. v. Braketown USA, Inc., et al -- Memorandum Opinion and Order denying third-party defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Court found Braketown and Ermak have made a prima facie showing of specific jurisdiction. Antil S.p.A. has sufficient minimal contacts with Iowa that requiring Antil S.p.A. to litigate in Iowa will not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Court denied third-party defendant's motion to dismiss. 04/08/2015
-Severe v. O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc. -- Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion for summary judgment. Court found plaintiff pointed to sufficient evidence to raise genuine issue of material fact on the issue of pretext regarding both plaintiff's age discrimination and FMLA discrimination claims. Court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment on Counts I and II. Court found Severe conceded that the evidence revealed in discovery does not support a FMLA interference of rights claim. Court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment on Count III.03/23/2015
-Parks v. Ariens Company -- Order on defendant's motion for protective order. Court found defendant failed to meet the heavy burden of showing the deposition of Daniel Ariens would cause undue burden. Court found plaintiff provided a sufficient explanation as to why the deposition might result in the discovery of relevant information. Court denied motion for protective order in part and granted in part. 02/25/2015
-Fiore v. Drew, et al -- Report and Recommendation on defendants' motion for summary judgment. Court concluded Fiore failed to properly exhaust all available administrative remedies by not submitting grievances based on the allegations in his complaint and by not following the correct grievance procedures. Court also concluded Fiore could not create any genuine issues of material fact regardng his allegations of deliberate indifference towards his medical needs, verbal sexual harassment and failure to respond to grievances. Court recommended defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted and Fiore's complaint be dismissed with prejudice.02/05/2015
-Shawn Kampfe v. PetSmart, Inc. and Matthew Boos -- Order on plaintiff Shawn Kampfe's motion to quash subpoena and for protective order. Court found Kampfe's employee personnel records, including performance evaluations and disciplinary records from a prior employer were relevant to issues in the case and defendants were entitled to discovery of the employment files. Court further found Kampfe did not meet her burden for a protective order and found the interests of litigants in discovering relevant information outweighed the general privacy interest an employee has in the contents of his or her employment file. Court ordered defendants may serve a subpoena duces tecum for Kampfe's employment files. 01/29/2015
-Richard Trevino v. Woodbury County Jail, et al. -- Report and Recommendation on motion for summary judgment by defendants Woodbury County Jail, Lieutenant Phillips and Carlos LNU. Court concluded Trevino failed to exhaust all available administrative remedies by not submitting grievances to the Jail regarding all his allegations, by not following the Jail's procedures for filing grievances and by not filing any complaints with the Department of Justice. Court also concluded no genuine issues of material fact exist with regard to the elements of Trevino's ADA claim. Court recommended the motion for summary judgment be granted with respect to all Trevino's claims.01/22/2015
-United States of America v. Thirty-Two Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Dollars and Fifty-Six Cents ($32,820.56) in United States Currency -- Order on United States of America's motion to dismiss without prejudice. Court found that USA had a valid reason for seeking dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) and that there was no indication that USA is engaged in forum shopping. Court further found that granting USA's motion would not waste judicial resources and would not cause prejudice to claimants. Court ordered the action be dismissed without prejudice.01/09/2015
-Richard Trevino v. Woodbury County Jail, et al. -- Report and Recommendation on United States Marshals Service's Motion to Dismiss. Court concluded Trevino's action alleging the United States Marshals Service violated his constitutional rights and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act was not frivolous under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915. Court further concluded Trevino's claims against the United States Marshals Service were barred by sovereign immunity. Court recommended the motion to dismiss be granted and all claims asserted against the United States Marshals Service in this action be dismissed with prejudice. 01/07/2015
-Wells, et al. v. Lamplight Farms, Inc., et al. -- Order on defendant's motion to quash a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice. Court found plaintiffs were not entitled to depose witnesses or seek additional information to support new expert opinions after the expert witness disclosure deadline passed. Court also found plaintiffs could not seek the additional information for other, non-expert reasons because plaintiffs failed to discuss those other, non-expert reasons in meet-and-confer discussions with opposing counsel. Court granted defendant's motion to quash the deposition notice.12/18/2014
-Halstead v. McKinney -- Report and Recommendation on respondent James McKinney's motion to dismiss petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2254. Court concluded petitioner did not exhaust the grounds in his petition in the Iowa state courts prior to filing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Court further concluded petitioner's grounds are now procedurally defaulted. Therefore, petitioner lacks a cognizable legal theory in his petition for writ of habeas corpous. Court recommended respondent's motion to dismiss be granted. 11/12/2014
-Smith v. McKinney -- Report and Recommendation on petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2254. Court found the Iowa Courts identified Strickland as the correct governing law and reasonably applied Strickland to petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim for failure to advise petitioner if he pled guilty, he would be sentenced to a mandatory lifetime term of parole. Court concluded the Iowa Courts' finding that counsel's failure was deficient, however, petitioner, failed to show prejudice was reasonable. Court recommended the petition be denied. 11/12/2014
-Life Insurance Company of North America v. Erasmo Eufracio, Charlene Baas and Ronald Baas -- Report and Recommendation on defendants Charlene and Ronald Baas' motion for sanctions. Court recommended the motion be granted due to defendant Eufracio's inaction in the case and violations of procedural rules. Defendant Eufracio failed to appear at the final pretrial conference, did not serve any witness or exhibit lists, and failed to participate in the preparation of the proposed final pretrial order. 11/04/2014
-John Denton Myers v. Hog Slat, Inc. -- Order on defendant's motion for partial summary judgment. Court granted in part defendant Hog Slat, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on Count III (violation of the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Act) and Count V (breach of contract). Court denied in part defendant's motion on Count I (associational discrmination in violation of the ADA) and Count II (interference with employee benefits in violation of ERISA). Court found genuine issues of material fact existed as to the issues of casual connection and pretext. Court entered judgment accordingly for each count. 10/24/2014
-Nunley v. Erdmann, et al. -- Report and Recommendation on defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims under Section 1983. Court recommended the motion be granted with regard to any and all claims asserted on behalf of plaintiff's minor child without prejudice. Court also recommended the motion be granted with regard to all claims asserted against the Iowa State Patrol, all plaintiff's state law tort claims and Counts IV, VI and VII with prejudice. Court recommended the motion be granted with regard to Counts I, II and V unless plaintiff is able, by amendment, to cure the pleading deficiencies. 10/08/2014
-Katrina West v. Abendroth & Russell Law Firm -- Order on defendant's motion for summary judgment. Court granted defendant Abendroth & Russell's motion for summary judgment with regard to all counts. Court found no genuine issue of material fact existed as to the alleged FDCPA violation. Court also found no genuine issue of material fact existed on plaintiff Katrina West's state law claims. Court entered judgment for defendant and against plaintiff. 09/16/2014
-Nathan A. Martin v. Champion Ford, Inc. -- Order on cross motions for summary judgment. Court granted defendant Champion Ford, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff Nathan A. Martin's motion for summary judgment. Court found no genuine issue of material fact existed as to hostile work environment or race discrimination by defendant Champion Ford, Inc. Court entered judgment in favor of defendant and against plaintiff.08/28/2014
-Progressive Casualty Insurance Company v. FDIC -- Order on defendant Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.'s motion to compel plaintiff to comply with court order and motion to compel Everest Reinsurance Company to comply with subpoena. Court granted in part motion to compel plaintiff's compliance and directed plaintiff to provide unredacted reinsurance documents. Court denied in part motion to compel plaintiff to produce certain electronically stored information. Court granted in part motion to compel Everest's compliance and directed Everest to produce documents responsive to the subpoena.08/22/2014
-Wells v. Lamplight Farms, Inc, et al. -- Order on defendant Lamplight's motion to compel answers to interrogatories and discovery of health records. Court granted in part motion to compel and directed plaintiff to supplement their answers to interrogatories. Court denied in part motion to compel discovery of health records.08/15/2014
-Foster v. Cerro Gordo County, et al. -- Order granting plaintiff's motion for leave to file amended complaint. Court found that existing defendants had not demonstrated that amendment naming previously unidentified defendants was futile based on a statute of limitations defense and alleged failure to relate back to the original complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(C).07/25/2014
-Hearing v. Minnesota Life v. Holloway -- Order granting defendant's motion to deposit interpleader funds and plaintiff's motion to dismiss/motion for summary judgment on third-party defendant's counterclaim. Court found Minnesota Life was entitled to deposit funds with the court, recover attorney fees and costs and be dismissed with prejudice as the facts demonstrated it had a real and reasonable fear of exposure to double liability. However, third-party defendant's counterclaim ultimately could not survive summary judgment because the insured had not done all he could to comply with the policy requirements for changing a beneficiary and there were no facts suggesting unconscionable conduct to justify imposing a constructive trust. As such, plaintiff was entitled to policy proceeds. 07/21/2014
-Wilkins v. Ludwick -- Order on pending motions and Report and Recommendation on petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Court denied motions to add a supplemental claim and expand the record because supplemental claim was barred by statute of limitations. As to the petition, court found Iowa Supreme Court did not identify Strickland as the correct governing law for petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim for failure to object to use of the nickname "O.J." at trial. In conducting de novo review, court found petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice under Strickland. Court found that Iowa Court of Appeals decision on other ineffective assistance of counsel claim for failure to investigate a witness and call him at trial did not result in an unreasonable application of federal law. Court recommended the petition be denied. 07/21/2014
-Goettsch et al v. Goettsch et al -- Order on plaintiffs' motion to strike defendants' jury demand pursuant to Rule 39(a)(2). Court found defendants were not entitled to a jury trial on Count One in which plaintiffs alleged oppressive conduct and sought judicial dissolution of the corporation or a mandatory buyout of their stock. Court found defendants were entitled to a jury trial on Count Two in which plaintiffs alleged breach of fiduciary duty and sought compensatory damages. Court rejected defendants' arguments that affirmative defense of breach of contract and "common issues" entitled them to a jury trial on all claims. 07/08/2014
-GLCC v. AT&T Corp. -- Report and Recommendation on GLCC's motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment. Court recommended the motion to dismiss be denied based on GLCC's standing argument and with regard to Count I of AT&T's counterclaim. Court recommended the motion be granted as to Counts II and III of AT&T's counterclaim pursuant to the primary jurisdiction doctrine. As for GLCC's motion for summary judgment on the issue of AT&T's liability, the court recommended the motion be denied as GLCC had not demonstrated it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.06/24/2014
-DIRECTV v. Klingenberg, et al. -- Report and Recommendation on plaintiff's motion for entry of judgment by default against defendant Last Call Saloon, LLC. Court found it had subject matter and personal jurisdiction and plaintiff had demonstrated that Last Call Saloon was liable under 47 U.S.C. 605(a). Court recommended the motion be granted and judgment be entered against Last Call for basic statutory damages, enhanced damages and costs and attorney fees.06/20/2014
-Life Insurance Company of North America v. Baas, et al. -- Order granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's application to recover costs and attorney fees in interpleader action. Court concluded plaintiff was only entitled to recover $1000 for attorney fees and expenses related to locating and serving defendant in Mexico. Plaintiff was also entitled to recover full amount of attorney fees related to legal research and drafting pleadings, motions and briefs. Court found plaintiff was not entitled to recover local counsel expenses or filing and mailing fees as plaintiff had not provided the appropriate documentation.06/17/2014
-Celia v. North Central Correctional Faciltiy, et al. -- Report and Recommendation on defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's Section 1983 claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Court found plaintiff failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants actually knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to plaintiff in the treatment and timing of treatment for his ankle injury. In addition, the undisputed evidence showed plaintiff had not exhausted his administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a) and defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Court recommended defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted.06/13/2014
-Scott v. City of Sioux City, et al. -- Order denying defendant's motion to amend answer to add affirmative defense of "after-acquired evidence." Court found proposed defense was purely anticipatory because the City had not yet decided to discharge Scott, and in any event, the defense would not apply because the evidence of misconduct was discovered prior to any termination. Court concluded the proposed defense was "legally insufficient" pursuant to Rule 12(f) and futile for purposes of Rule 15(a).06/04/2014
-Langdeaux v. Lund -- Order on motion to expand the record and Report and Recommendation on petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Court denied motion to expand the record under 28 U.S.C. 2254(e)(2). As to the petition, court found Iowa Court of Appeals decision did not result in any unreasonable application of federal law when it concluded the petitioner was not prejudiced by his counsels' failure to advise him about the felony-murder rule in the context of whether to accept the state's plea offer. Court also found Iowa Court of Appeals reasonably applied Strickland in concluding counsels' decision not to call the sheriff as a witness or conduct further investigation based on his statement did not amount to deficient performance. Court recommended the petition be denied. 05/20/2014
-Rasmussen v. Hacker, et al -- Report and Recommendation on defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's Section 1983 claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Court found plaintiff failed to demonstrate genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants actually knew of a substantial risk of serious harm to plaintiff's health and disregarded it. Defendant McKinney also could not be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior and both defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Court recommended that defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted. 05/07/2014
-Urban v. Sells, et al. -- Report and Recommendation for entry of order dismissing action with prejudice and imposing monetary sanctions on plaintiff. Court found dismissal was appropriate because allegations were totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit or no longer open to discussion. Judgment had been entered against plaintiff four times on claims arising out of some or all of the same events alleged in current complaint and new claims were barred by doctrines of res judicata, prosecutorial immunity, Rooker-Feldman, the Eleventh Amendment, statute of limitations and Rule 12(b)(6). After giving plaintff the opportunity to show cause, the court also recommended imposing monetary sanctions under Rule 11. Plaintiff filed sixth federal lawsuit despite the court having explained the law, advised him of his right to appeal, cautioned him that filing frivolous repetitive lawsuits would result in sanctions and told him what the likely amount of those sanctions would be.04/25/2014
-Pick v. City of Remsen, et all. -- Order granting defendants' motion for order directing destruction of an inadvertently-produced privileged document. Court found that no waiver occurred as a result of the inadvertent disclosure because defendants' attorney took reasonable precautions to prevent disclosure and acted quickly to seek relief upon discovering the error. Plaintiff also would not be unfairly prejudiced by the requested relief. Plaintiff was directed to destroy all copies of the privileged communication.04/25/2014
-FDIC v. Dosland, et al -- Order granting defendants' motion to compel discovery. Court found that FDIC-R had not met its burden of demonstrating internal OTS documents at issue were so plainly irrelevant that they were not discoverable. Court also found that under 12.U.S.C. Section 1821(o), FDIC-R had the legal right to obtain the documents meaning they were within it's "possession, custody, or control" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a).04/04/2014
-Streeter v. Premier Services, Inc. -- Memorandum Opinion and Order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment. Court found plaintiff could not point to evidence that defendant knew of plaintiff's alleged disability for his disability discrimination claim. With regard to his race discrimination claim, the undisputed evidence showed plaintiff failed to meet his employer's legitimate expectations and employees who committed similar violations as plaintiff were treated the same, regardless of race. Plaintiff was also not entitled to relief under FMLA because he was not employed by the defendant for at least 12 months.04/01/2014
- Cornell v. Jim Hawk Truck Trailer, Inc., et al -- Order denying plaintiff's motion for leave to file second amended complaint. Court found that plaintiff had not met the "good cause" requirement under Rule 16(b) to add a party several months after the deadline. Plaintiff had sufficient information about the proposed party to be put on inquiry notice several months before the deadline. Plaintiff did not follow up on this information before the deadline and did not act promptly when she received an unambiguous answer concerning the proposed party's role in the corporate organization. Court found plaintiff had failed to show that despite diligence, her proposed amendment could not reasonably have been offered sooner.03/26/2014
-Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Agency One Insurance, Inc., et al -- Memorandum Opinion and Order denying plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment against defendant Agency One. Court found there were genuine issues of material fact on plaintiff's claim of negligence, negligent supervision, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract. 03/25/2014
-Meighan v. TransGuard Insurance Company of America, Inc. -- Order on plaintiff's motion to compel responses to discovery. Court found that defendant must produce some documents where work product privilege did not apply because the documents were not prepared in anticipation of litigation. Court found work product privilege and attorney client privilege applied to all other documents.03/24/2014
-Wells, et al. v. Lamplight Farms, Inc., et al. - Order on defendant Lamplight's motion to quash or modify a subpoena and motion for protective order. Court granted motion to quash or modify subpoena and directed recipient to comply to the extent that the requested information related to the product at issue. Court also granted motion for protective order and directed defendants to submit a proposed protective order consistent with the terms described by the court.03/12/2014
-Progressive Casualty Insurance Company v. FDIC, et al -- Order on defendant's motion to compel production of documents from privilege logs and motion to compel discovery. Court directed plaintiff to serve a supplemental privilege log providing more information concerning 14 disputed documents. Court also found defendant was entitled to production of documents concerning other similar claims, reinsurance information and document retention policies. Court denied defendant's request for production of reserve information and regulatory filings in states other than Iowa. 03/10/2014
-Daniels v. The City of Sioux City, et al -- Order on defendants' motion to strike plaintiffs' expert witness disclosures and plaintiffs' motion to extend the deadline for their expert witness disclosures. Court found that plaintiffs barely demonstrated good cause to extend their expert witness disclosure deadline and because the scheduling order could be amended without causing unfair prejudice, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to extend the deadline and denied defendants' motion to strike plaintiffs' disclosure of expert witnesses without prejudice.03/04/2014
-Pick v. City of Remsen, et al. -- Order granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's motion to file fourth amended complaint. Court allowed plaintiff to add new allegation of defamation against a particular defendant, but denied amendments to add new factual allegations in support of plaintiff's wrongful termination claim and a new claim of intentional interference with employment contract as plaintiff did not demonstrate good cause for these untimely amendments.02/25/2014
-John and Dave LLC v. Society Insurance -- Order on defendant's motion for summary judgment and plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's reply in support of its motion for summary judgment. Court granted summary judgment to defendant on plaintif's claim of unjust enrichment, reasonable expectations, bad faith and punitive damages, but denied summary judgment on plaintif's breach of contract claim as there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to additional payments under the Policy. Court denied plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's reply, but disregarded the improper new arguments made therein.02/21/2014
-Cornell v. Jim Hawk Truck Trailer, Inc. et al. -- Order on plaintiff's motion to quash subpoenas duces tecum and for protective order. Court found that defendants were entitled to discover disciplinary reports from subsequent employers but not former employers. Court also found defendants were entitled to obtain performance evaluations from plaintiff's employers dating back to January 1, 2007. As for plaintiff's current employer, court found plaintiff could either obtain her entire personnel file herself and produce it in its entirety to defendants or defendants could enforce the subpoena.02/20/2014
-Scott v. City of Sioux City, et al. -- Order on plaintiff's motion to take more than ten depositions. Court found that plaintiff made a "particularized showing" why additional depositions were necessary and that none of the factors listed in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(C) were present to justify limiting discovery. Court granted leave, pursuant to Rule 30(a)(2), for plaintiff to conduct the additional proposed depositions.02/11/2014
-Hanzl v. Collier -- Report and Recommendation on plaintiff's motion for entry of a preliminary deficiency judgment against defendants. Court found plaintiff was entitled to deduct attorney's fees from the sale price of the West Street property, but that the total amount of attorney's fees should be reduced based on the scope of services and hourly rate. Court recommended a preliminary deficiency judgment be entered pursuant to the order enforcing the parties' settlement agreement, but that entry of final judgment be deferred until it was determined whether the amount should be adjusted to reflect any income tax liability from the sale of the property.01/31/2014
-Sanders v. McKinney, et al. -- Report and Recommendation on defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's Section 1983 claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Court found that plaintiff had failed to demonstrate genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants actually knew of a substantial risk of serious harm to Sander's health and disrgarded it. Alternatively, defendants were entitled to a qualified immunity and there was insufficient factual evidence to support Sander's claim against certain defendants. Court recommended that defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted.12/17/2013
-Cornell v. Jim Hawk Truck Trailer, Inc., et al -- Order denying plaintiff's motion regarding sequencing of discovery. Court found that plaintiff had failed to demonstrate good cause for withholding audio recordings from defendants until certain witnesses had been deposed. Plaintiff was ordered to produce the requested audio recordings without further delay. 12/16/2013
-Community Voice Line LLC v. Great Lakes Communication Corp. -- Order granting plaintiff's motion for leave to file second amended complaint. Count found that plaintiff's motion was timely and defendant had not demonstrated undue delay, undue prejudice, harassment, bad faith or futility of claims that would justify denial of the motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). Court also rejected defendant's argument that the motion should be denied because some of the proposed claims were being pursued in Maryland state court. 12/04/2013
-Catipovic v. Turley, et al -- Order denying plaintiff's renewed motion for leave to amend his complaint. Court found that plaintiff had failed to show good cause for his untimely amendment under FRCP 16(b). Alternatively, his amendment would not be allowed under Rule 15(a) because the proposed new fraud claim was futile and adding the claim at such a late stage in the case would be unduly prejudicial to all defendants.11/20/2013
-Huerta-Orosco v. Cosgrove -- Order granting plaintiff's motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. Court found plaintiff had filed his motion to amend within the time allowed by the court's scheduling order and defendant would not suffer undue prejudice by allowing plaintiff to amend his complaint at this time. While defendant raised valid statute of limitations arguments, the outcome was not so apparent based on the limited information in the record that plaintiff's claims in the new complaint could be considered futile. 10/30/2013
-Redd v. Lutgen -- Report and Recommendation on defendants' motion for summary judgment where plaintiff alleged a violation of his First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. Court found defendants were entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff had not raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants' conduct imposed a substantial burden on his religious beliefs. Alternatively, defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff failed to show that a reasonable officer would have had notice that the alleged conduct was unconstitutional.10/28/2013
-Redd v. Lutgen -- Report and Recommendation on plaintiff's application for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. Court found plaintiff had not demonstrated a relationship between the injury described in the application and the events alleged in the complaint. Therefore, the court recommended plaintiff's application be denied.10/23/2013
-Velazquez-Ramirez v. Fayram -- Report and Recommendation on petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Court found Iowa Court of Appeals unreasonably applied Strickland's prejudice prong to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to file a motion for change of venue and investigate prejudice in the jury pool and failure to raise issue of compliance with the Vienna Convention. However, under de novo review the court found petitioner was unable to demonstrate prejudice. Court found Iowa Court of appeals reasonably applied Strickland in concluding counsel's alleged failure to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support first-degree murder did not amount to deficient performance. Finally, court found claim of ineffective assistance for failure to file a motion to suppress based on Miranda violation was procedurally barred. Court recommended petition be denied.10/23/2013
-Van Stelton, et al v. Van Stelton, et al -- Order on plaintiffs' motions for discovery sanctions and contempt sanctions. Court found witness and attorneys had violated rules of civil procedure and court's previous order outlining appropriate deposition procedures by refusing to answer questions or instructing the witness not to answer questions on certain topics based on relevance. Court imposed sanctions on witness and attorneys and denied motions for contempt sanctions.10/09/2013
-Graney, et al v. Mercy Health Services-Iowa Corp. -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for other sanctions. Court found dismissal was warranted based on plaintiffs' failure to comply with multiple court orders including discovery orders, which repeatedly advised plaintiffs of their obligations and that failure to comply could result in dismissal of their case. Court found that plaintiffs' total lack of action was willful and had prejudiced defendant. Court recommended the case be dismissed with prejudice.09/18/2013
-Daniels v. The City of Sioux City, et al. -- Order denying the City of Sioux City's motion to bifurcate claims and stay discovery and trial. Court found that it was too early in the case to determine if bifurcation was apporpriate and plaintiff was entitled to conduct discovery with regard to all claims at this point.09/13/2013
-Van Stelton, et al v. Van Stelton, et al -- Order denying plaintiffs' motion for leave to file fourth amended complaint. Court found that plaintiffs had failed to show good cause for seeking leave to file a fourth amended complaint six months after the deadline. Court also found defendants would be unfairly prejudiced by a fourth amended complaint that sought to add new claims, reinstate a dismissed claim and add new parties at this stage of the case. 09/09/2013
-Streeter v. Premier Services, Inc,. et al. -- Memorandum Opinion and Order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Tur-Pak Foods, Inc. Court found that Tur-Pak was entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff was not an employee of Tur-Pak. Even if he could be considered an employee, the court found his claims would still fail as a matter of law because he had not established a prima facie case for his discrimination claims or that he was "eligible employee" for his FMLA claim.09/06/2013
-Jason Martin and Amber Martin v. Apex Tool Group, LLC -- Order denying defendant's motion to exclude plaintiffs' expert's opinions and motion for summary judgment. Court found that plaintiffs' expert's opinions should not be excluded because his findings were based on recognized methods and were relevant and likely to aid the jury. Court also concluded that defendant was not entitled to summary judgment regardless of whether the plaintiffs' expert's opinions were excluded because viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to support their claim.08/16/2013
-Community Voice Line LLC v. Great Lakes Communication Corp. -- Order granting in part and denying in part defendant's motions to compel discovery concerning five interrogatories and ten document requests. 08/01/2013
-Clay v. Woodbury County, et al - Order denying plaintiff's motion to quash subpoena and discovery deposition of her treating psychiatrist. Court found that the patient-litigant exception applied because the plaintiff asserted a claim based on emotional injry and she could not undo the exception by withdrawing only part of that claim. In the alternative, the court found plaintiff had waived the physician-patient privilege by voluntarily providing copies of her records, signing a waiver that allowed defendants to obtain her records and testifying about her treatment with the psychiatrist.07/17/2013
-Mapleton Processing, Inc. v. Society Insurance Company -- Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiff's motion to compel appraisal. Court found there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff's violation of a condition precedent caused prejudice to defendant, allowing its breach of contract claim to proceed to trial. Plaintiff's other claims of bad faith and punitive damages failed as a matter of law. Court denied plaintiff's moton to compel appraisal, finding that although plaintiff had a contractual right to appraisal, it had waived that right through various decision and actions. 07/10/2013
-Community Voice Line LLC v. Great Lakes Communication Corp. -- Order granting plaintiff's motion for sanctions against defendant for failure to comply with court's discovery order. Court found that defendant failed to produce requried documents by the deadline set forth in the discovery order and qualified its supplemental responses against the court's instructions. Court ordered a monetary sanction and prohibited defendant from offering certain documents into evidence. 07/09/2013
-Peters v. Woodbury County, et al and Clay v. Woodbury County, et al -- Order denying plaintiffs' joint motion to consolidate cases. Court found that although cases demonstrate common questions of law, there are no common issues of fact which could create a serious risk of prejudice to defendants. Additionally, the burden on parties, witnesses and resources outweighed any benefits of consolidation.06/24/2013
-Perzynski v. Cerro Gordo County, Iowa, et al -- Order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and her state law claims of malicious prosecution and false imprisonment Court found that plaintiff failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to whether probable cause existed at the time of her arrest, whether she was arrested pursuant to an official governmental policy and whether individual defendants knowingly made a false statement to law enforcement, instigated her arrest or acted with malice.06/24/2013
-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. Harry --Sentencing opinion in which the court explained its policy disagreement with the actual and ice methamphetamine guidelines and concluded that the appropriate remedy is to calculate an alternative guidelines range based on the methamphetamine mixture guidelines. 06/06/2018
-United States of America v. Arlyn Johnson -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss. Court found defendant was not entitled to have the evidence weighed at this point in the criminal proceeding. Additionally Court found that due to Iowa's process for removing firearms disabilities, defendant was unable to show that 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4) was unconstitutional as applied to him. Court recommends defendant's motion to dismiss be denied. 01/19/2016
-USA v. Yorgensen -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion for Franks hearing and motion to suppress. Court found the defendant made the required showing to be entitled to a Franks hearing. Court determined in the Franks hearing that the defendant was able to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the affidavit in support of the warrant contained material omissions and a reckless disregard for the truth. As such, court found the evidence obtained as a direct and indirect result of the warrant needed to be suppressed. Additionally court found that if the district court finds the Franks hearing was unwarranted or the defendant failed to meet his burden during the Franks hearing that the defendant did not make an unequivocal request for counsel and as such, the statements made after he mentioned counsel do not warrant suppression. Court recommends the evidence obtained as a direct and indirect result of the warrant be suppressed. 10/02/2015
-USA v. Clark -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress. Court found the officer had probable cause to arrest Clark and therefore evidence obtained as a direct result of that arrest did not merit suppression.09/04/2015
-USA v. Federico Jimenez Hernandez -- Order denying defendant's motion for court ordered writ. Court found defendant has failed to cite any legal authority under which this court can grant relief. Court denied defendant's motion. 08/24/2015
-USA v. Lobsinger -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss Counts 1 and 2 of the indictment. Court found that the State had promised in the plea agreement that no federal criminal charges would be filed after defendant pled guilty. Court found the State prosecutor did not have express actual authority to bind the Government to that promise. Nor did the State prosecutor have implied actual authority to bind the Government to a promise made in the state plea agreement. Court recommended that the motion to dismiss be denied. 07/02/2015
-United States of America v. Simeon -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from a vehicle after a free air dog sniff. Court found that the defendant's detention was not unreasonably prolonged. Court found there was reasonable suspicion to conduct a free air dog sniff of defendant's vehicle in the parking lot. Court found there was probable cause to search defendant's vehicle, before the free air dog sniff was conducted. However, Court also found that the narcotics-detector dog was reliable and certified and that his indication of narcotics on defendant's vehicle provided probable cause to search the vehicle. Court recommended defendant's motion to suppress evidence be denied. 04/07/2015
-US v. Martinez-Hernandez -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss Count One which charges Martinez-Hernandez with being an aggravated felon found after illegal re-entry in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections 1326(a) and 1326(b)(2). Court found that the two-day delay between the defendant's arrest and his initial appearance in front of a United States Magistrate Judge was not a violation of his rights under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(a). Court also found that had the two-day delay been a violation of Rule 5(a), dismissal of the charges would not be the proper remedy under United States v. Chavez. Court recommended the motion to dismiss be denied. 02/25/2015
-USA v. Dimmick -- Order on motion for release filed by defendant appearing on a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. Defendant requested that he be returned to state custody pending trial in order to participate in state parole proceedings. He argued that the release considerations set forth in the Bail Reform Act do not apply under these circumstances. The court denied the motion, holding that the Bail Reform Act applies and that the Government met its burden of proving that the defendant should be detained in federal custody while awaiting trial.01/30/2015
-USA v. Ingmar Hernandez - Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss Count One, which alleges a conspiracy to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 371. Court found that the allegations of the indictment, when accepted as true and read as a whole, describes a conspiracy that targeted the United States. Court also found that, when accepted as true and read as a whole, the indictment describes actions by defendant sufficient to charge him with conspiracy to defraud the United States.01/21/2015
-USA v. Baker -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss count 1, which alleges a conspiracy to defaud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 371. Court found that the allegations of the indictment, when accepted as true and read as a whole, describe a conspiracy that targeted the United States. Court recommended that the motion be denied.12/29/2014
-USA v. Hernandez-Morales -- Report and Recommendation on third-party petition for return of money pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 853(n). Court found Rafael E. Chavez Lujan did not meet his burden of proof and was not entitled to the return of forfeited money. Court recommended the petition be denied.12/16/2014
-USA v. Rojas -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Court found that the defendant was lawfully stopped and arreted and that two search warrants were properly issued based on probable cause arising from legally-obtained evidence. Court recommended that the motion to suppress be denied.10/03/2014
-USA v. Mosley -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a warrantless search of a duffel bag dropped by defendant in his own yard during flight from law enforcement. Court found that the defendant did not abandon the bag by leaving it within the curtilage of his own home. Court further found that the plain view/plain smell doctrine did not justify law enforcement's search of the bag without first obtaining a warrant. Court recommended that the motion to suprress be granted.09/26/2014
-USA v. Tome Rojas -- Order denying defendant's motion to compel discovery. Court found defendant had not established a need to learn the identity of a confidential informant in Texas who did not witness the alleged offenses in Iowa and did not provide information that led to the return of a federal indictment against defendant based on those alleged offenses. Nor did defendant demonstrate that information contained in a Texas investigative file might be helpful and material to his defense in Iowa. 08/12/2014
-USA v. Jose Orellana -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence from a post-Miranda interview. Court found that the defendant expressly waived his Miranda rights before making a statement and that the waiver was made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. Court recommended that the motion to suppress be denied. 07/31/2014
-USA v. McCammon -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence from a post-Miranda interview and subsequent search of his residence. Court found that defendant's statements were not involuntary due to his impaired state or any alleged coercive police activity. Defendant also provided a voluntary, knowing and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights before making a statement. Court recommended that the motion to suppress be denied. 01/23/2014
-USA v. Himes -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence resulting from impoundment and inventory of vehicle. Court found that decision to impound was not based on community caretaking function or standardized criteria and was therefore an unreasonable seizure and search under the Fourth Amendment. Court recommended that evidence found in vehicle be suppressed as well as subsequently-gathered evidence from defendant's residence and statements he made to officers while in custody.12/30/2013
-USA v. Montoya-Echeverria -- Order granting defendant's motion to strike portions of the indictment. Court found that 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) identifies the elements of the alleged offense (reentry of deported alien) and subsection (b)(2) describes circumstances relevant to sentencing. Court ordered that references to aggravated felon, subsection (b)(2) and defendant's alleged prior conviction be stricken as surplusage pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(d).12/30/2013
-United States of America v. Delgado -- Order granting motion for pretrial detention. Court found the Government had the right to seek pretrial detention because defendant had been convicted of two or more offenses decribed in subparagraphs (A) through (C) as pvoided in 18 U.S.C. section 3142(f)(1)(D). Court found pretrial detention was warranted based on the weight of the evidence against the defendant and her history and characteristics.12/04/2013
-United States of America v. Dean -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss counts for lack of jurisdiction. Court found that it had subject matter jurisdiction over counts based on alleged violations of the Hobbs Act and that defendant could not challenge the sufficiency of the Government's evidence prior to trial. Court recommended the motion be denied without prejudice to defendant's right to make a motion for acquittal pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 29.12/03/2013
-USA v. Boykin -- Order granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion to sever. Court granted part of motion requesting severance of defendant's trial from his codefendant's, but denied part of motion requesting severance of the four counts against defendant into two separate trials.10/15/2013
-USA v. Sandoval -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from a search of his house and from a post-Miranda interview. The court found the information supporting the search warrant was not stale, it was reaonable for the issuing judge to rely upon information from all informants and there was sufficient evidence to connect the defendant and his residence to information about "Nacho." Court also found that exclusion of the evidence was not appropriate under United States v. Leon and recommended defendant's motion be denied.09/03/2013
-USA v. Barragan -- Report and Recommendation denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from a search of his hotel room and from a post-Miranda interview. The court found that defendant gave voluntary consent to search his hotel room, the search did not exceed the scope of consent and the defendantprovided a voluntary, knowing and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights.08/27/2013
-USA v. Hansen -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the placement of a GPS tracking device on defendant's vehicle. Court found that although the search warrant applications violated Iowa law because the applicant was not a "special state agent," the search did not violate the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights because the warrants were supported by probable cause. Court also found that exclusion of the evidence was not appropriate under United States v. Leon and recommended defendant's motion be denied. 06/19/2013
-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
-Jones v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of Title XVI Social Security income benefits. Court found that the ALJ properly developed the record and the ALJ did not fail to fulfill his duty in this request. Court also found the record contained substantial evidence for the ALJ's credibility determination. Court recommended the ALJ's decision be affirmed.10/30/2015
-Vega v. Colvin -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of Title XVI Supplemental Security income benefits. Court found the ALJ erred in applying adult criteria when K.I.V. is a child. Court reversed and remanded with instructions for the ALJ to apply the correct "child" criteria.09/10/2015
-Howes v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of Title II Social Security disability insurance benefits and Title XVI Supplemental Security income benefits. Court found the ALJ's RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and the ALJ properly analyzed the claimant's credibility. Court found the ALJ's failure to ask the VE if his testimony was consistent with the DOT was harmless error that does not require remand. Court recommended the ALJ's decision be affirmed. 08/24/2015
-Thedford v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of Title II Social Security disability insurance benefits and Title XVI Supplemental Security income benefits. Court found that the ALJ's RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and that the ALJ properly analyzed the claimant's credibility. Court recommended the ALJ's decision be affirmed. 07/30/2015
-Crum v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of Title II Social Security disablity insurance benefits and Title XVI Supplemental Security income benefits. Court found the law of the case doctrine did not preclude the ALJ, on remand, from making new findings as to Crum's RFC. Court also found the ALJ properly analyzed evidence that could support inconsistent conclusions and made RFC findings that are within the permissible zone of choice. The Court concluded the ALJ's second RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Court also found the VE identified available positions in the national economy and the VE's testimony concerning both positions is consistent with the DOT. Court recommended the ALJ's decision be affirmed. 07/17/2015
-McIntire v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial for Title II Social Security Disabiltiy benefits and Title XVI Supplemental Security income benefits. Court found the ALJ erred in using McIntire's return to work as evidence that she was not disabled without first considering whether she was entitled to a trial work period. Court also found the ALJ failed to properly analyze the psychological consultant's opinion, as directed, on remand. Court found the ALJ did not commit error by failing to take additional steps to develop the record concerning McIntire's employment. Court recommended the ALJ's decision be reversed and remanded for further proceedings. 06/25/2015
-Schnee v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title XVI Supplemental Security income benefits. Court found the ALJ's findings were not inconsistent with regard to Schnee's drug addiction and alcoholism impairment. Court found substantial evidence on the record as a whole supported the ALJ's findings that Schnee was disabled prior to February 17, 2012, and that drug addiction and alcoholism was a contributing factor material to disability. Court found the ALJ properly found that Schnee was no longer disabled after February 17, 2012. Court recommended the ALJ's decision be affirmed.06/25/2015
-Ackerman v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title II Social Security Disability benefits and Title XVI Supplemental Security income benefits. Court found the ALJ gave proper weight to the opinions of a non-treating medical source and a licensed mental health counselor. Court found the ALJ gave sufficient reasons for discounting the opinions. Court also found the Appeals Council properly refused to consider a psychologist's report when the report did not address medical conditions occurring during the relevant time period. Court found substantial evidence supported the ALJ's RFC assessment. Court recommended the ALJ's decision be affirmed. 06/16/2015
-Cowles v. Colvin -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title II Social Security disability insurance benefits. Court found the medical evidence substantially supports the ALJ's decision regarding the severity of Cowles' impairments and that the ALJ pointed to specific portions of the record showing that Cowles' impairment had no more than a minimal effect on her ability to work. Court also found the ALJ provided good reasons, supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, for affording little weight to the medical opinions of Cowles' nurse practitioner and examining physical thearpist. Court found substantial evidence supports the ALJ's finding that Cowles has past relevant work as a waitress because she performed that job at the substantial gainful activity level in 1997. Count affirmed ALJ's decision.04/24/2015
-Mann v. Colvin -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title II Social Security disability insurance benefits and Title XVI Supplemental Security income benefits. Court found the ALJ did not impose an "objective evidence" requirement when determining Mann's RFC and there was substantial evidence to support the RFC determination. However, Court found the ALJ failed to address Listing 11.03 when determining whether Mann's severe migraines meet or medically equal the severity of a listed impairment. Court also found the ALJ failed to develop the record fully and fairly, as the record contains no opinion evidence from any treating or examining source as to Mann's RFC. Case reversed and remanded for further proceedings. 04/23/2015
-Berry v. Colvin -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title II Social Security Disability benefits. Court found there was substantial evidence supporting the ALJ's conclusion that Berry's migraine headaches were non-severe. Court also found there was substantial evidence supporting the ALJ's finding that Berry had the RFC to perform light work with no additional limitations for pace and concentration. Court found the ALJ properly considered all impairments and reviewed the record as a whole. Court entered judgment in favor of the Commissioner and against Berry.02/24/2015
-Wikstrom v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found that the ALJ properly weighed the medical opinion evidence and properly evaluated Wikstrom's credibility. Court found the ALJ's formulation of Wikstrom's RFC was supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Court recommended the ALJ's decision be affirmed.02/23/2015
-Gann v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found that the ALJ properly determined certain impairments to be non-severe and that the ALJ's formulation of plaintiff's RFC was supported by substantial evidence. Court also found that the ALJ provided good reasons for discounting plaintiff's credibility. Court recommended the ALJ's decision be affirmed.01/30/2015
-Katherine Allen v. Carolyn W. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title XVI Supplemental Security Income benefits. Court found ALJ's decision that Allen's asthma was not a severe impairment is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Court found ALJ's failure to develop a full and fair record was unfair and prejudicial. Court also found ALJ did not provide good reasons for discrediting other medical source opinions or Allen's credibility. Court recommended the ALJ's determination be reversed and remanded for further proceedings. 01/23/2015
-Mathies v. Colvin -- 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 discrediting treating physicians' opinions and failed to provide good reasons for giving great weight to a non-examining source's opinion. Court also found ALJ referenced relevant factors and provided an explanation supported by substantial evidence for discrediting claimant's testimony. Court recommended the ALJ's determination be reversed and remanded for further proceedings.12/09/2014
-Kennedy v. Colvin -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title II Social Security Disability benefits and Title XVI Supplemental Security income benefits. Court found ALJ's assessment of plaintiff Kennedy's credibility was proper and supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Court also found ALJ afforded proper weight to Kennedy's subjective allegations and ALJ's determination that Kennedy was not disabled was supported by substantial evidence in the record. Court entered judgment in favor of the Commissioner and against Kennedy.09/16/2014
-Rollefson v. Colvin -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ's analysis and consideration of Rollefson's credibility, VE's testimony, and vocational evaluation were proper and supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Court affirmed ALJ's decision.09/08/2014
-Rozeboom v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ did not provide good reasons for discrediting treating therapist's opinion and did not explain how medical evidence supported RFC determination. Court recommended that case be reversed and remanded for further proceedings for the ALJ to either obtain additional medical evidence from claimant's treatng psychiatrist or a consultative examiner or explain how existing medical evidence supports the RFC determination.07/23/2014
-Barrows 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 ALJ had appropriately indicated he considered obesity in determining the claimant's RFC and ALJ's evaluation of claimant's mental RFC was supported by substantial evidence. Court found ALJ's evaluation of claimant's physical RFC was not supported by substantial evidence and ALJ had failed to fully and fairly develop the record to support a Step Five determination that claimant could perform other work available in the national economy. Court recommended the case be reversed and remanded for further proceedings.07/01/2014
-Gutierrez 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 new and material evidence from treating physician was not credible and did not require reversal. Court also found ALJ's credibility determination and RFC and hypothetical question to the VE were supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Court recommended the ALJ's decision be affirmed.06/25/2014
-Thimmesch v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ's analysis of medical opinions, credibility and VE testimony was supported by substantial evidence. However, ALJ erred at Step Three by failing to discuss whether claimant's impairments were medically equal to Listing 12.05C or why this Listing was ignored. Court recommended the case be reversed and remanded for further proceedings.05/27/2014
-Kruger 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 ALJ's analysis of claimant's mental impairments was supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. However, ALJ did not meet burden at Step Five concerning claimant's physical impairments because there was no medical opinion from a treating or examining source and the medical evidence was insufficient to establish claimant's ability to perform competitive work. Court recommended the case be reversed and remanded for further proceedings.04/21/2014
-King v. Colvin -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ's analysis of consultative examiners' opinions and treating psychiatrists's notes were supported by substantial evidence as was ALJ's credibility determination. Court found ALJ did not meet burden at Step Five though because there were no medical opinions from a treating or examining source on work-related limitations associated with claimant's physical impairments. Case reversed and remanded for further proceedings.04/04/2014
-Walker v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ's credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence, but ALJ did not meet burden at Step Five because there was no medical evidence from a treating or examining source on the work-related limitations associated with claimant's severe impairment of recurrent headaches. Court recommended the case be reversed and remanded for further proceedings. 04/03/2014
-Murphy v. Colvin -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found that substantial evidence supported ALJ's finding that claimant could perform past relevant work and ALJ appropriately considered claimant's receipt of unemployment benefits in evaluating her credibility. Court found ALJ erred, however, by failing to discuss the weight he gave the consultative examiner's opinion and failing to provide good reasons supported by substantial evidence for discrediting the treating physician's opinion. Case reversed and remanded for further proceedings.03/26/2014
-DeVary v. Colvin -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found that substantial evidence supported ALJ's finding that claimant had RFC to perform sedentary work. Court also found substantial evidence supported ALJ's credibility assessment and Step Five determination that other work existed in the national economy that claimant could perform. ALJ's decision was affirmed.03/19/2014
-Bauerly 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 ALJ's evaluation of the medical evidence and claimant's credibiltiy was supported by substantial evidence. Court also found ALJ obtained appropriate testimony from a vocatonal expert on claimant's ability to perform work available in the national economy. Court recommended the ALJ's decision be affirmed.03/11/2014
-Niebaum 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 ALJ failed to fully and fairly develop the record by not obtaining medical opinions from an examining source as to claimant's mental and physical work-related limitations. ALJ's credibiltiy determination was also not supported by good reasons or substantial evidence. Court recommended the case be reversed and remanded for further proceedings.03/04/2014
-Tennyson v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ's evaluation of the treating psychologist's opinion and claimant's credibility was supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Court also found that ALJ's decision remained supported by substantial evidence when considering the new evidence in the record from claimant's nurse practitioner and vocational rehabilitation services.02/10/2014
-Ramos 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 the ALJ properly evaluated the medical opinions and claimant's credibilty. Although the ALJ mistakenly used a more limited RFC in determining if claimant could perform other work in the national economy and referred to a non-treating source as a treating source, the court found these errors did not warrant reversal. Court recommended the ALJ's decision be affirmed.01/29/2014
-Kunik v. Colvin -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found ALJ failed to consider relevant medical evidence in evaluating claimant's RFC and credibility. Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings to allow the ALJ to consider the evidence and additional evidence that had been submitted to the Appeals Council.01/27/2014
-Gulick 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 ALJ's weighting of the medical opinions and RFC determination were supported by substantial evidence but Commissioner did not meet burden at Step Five in determining whether claimant could perform work that existed in significant numbers in the national economy. Court recommended the case be reversed and remanded for further proceedings.01/17/2014
-Whited 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 ALJ's evaluation of the medical opinions was supported by substantial evidence and the ALJ adequately accounted for all of the claimant's impairments and related limitations in the RFC and hypothetical question to the VE. ALJ's credibility determination was also supported by substantial evidence. Court recommended the ALJ's decision be affirmed.01/09/2014
-Figgins 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 ALJ did not err in weighing medical evidence or discrediting claimant's allegations, but the ALJ should have obtained a medical opinion from a treatment source or consultative examiner regarding claimant's work-related limitations. Court recommended remand for the ALJ to obtain this evidence and re-evaluate whether claimant retained the RFC necessary to perform work that exists in the national economy.01/02/2014
-Vantuyl v. Colvin -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ did not err by failing to address all of the limitations identified by the state agency consultants or by failing to discuss certain evidence in evaluating the claimant's credibility. Court found ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. ALJ's decision was affirmed.11/20/2013
-Ditsworth v. Colvin -- Memorandum Opinion and Order 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 ALJ's analysis of claimant's credibility and the medical opinion evidence. Court also found the ALJ properly applied the Act's definition of disability and asked hypothetical questions that incorporated all of the claimant's proven impairments. ALJ's decision was affirmed. 11/12/2013
-Sneller v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application of Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found the ALJ provided good reasons supported by substantial evidence for discrediting the opinions of the treating physician and the claimant's subjective allegations. Court recommended the ALJ's decision be affirmed.11/07/2013
-Phalakhone 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 the ALJ erred by failing to order a new consultative examination after rejecting the first consultative examiner's opinion because she was not an acceptable medical source. The ALJ further erred by drawing his own inferences from the medical evidence when he cited the lack of objective medical evidence as the basis to discredit only the medical opinions identifying a sitting limitation, but found the same evidence sufficient to support other opinions/limitations. Court recommended the case be reversed and remanded for further proceedings.11/04/2013
-Al-Hameed v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application of Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ did not provide good reasons for giving no weight to the claimant's treating physician's opinion and failed to obtain a medical opinion addressing the claimant's work-related limitations for her mental impairment. Court recommended the case be reversed and remanded for further proceedings.11/04/2013
-Loftis v. Colvin -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ did not meet burden at Step 5 because there were no medical opinions supporting the claimant's RFC to perform other work available in the national economy. Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings to allow the ALJ to attempt to obtain medical opinions.10/16/2013
-Kohn v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application of Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found the ALJ provided good reasons for discrediting the claimant and her husband and properly weighed the medical opinions in determining the claimant's RFC. The ALJ appropriately incorporated the limitations from his RFC finding into the hypothetical question to the VE. Court recommended the ALJ's decision be affirmed.09/26/2013
-Carter v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application of Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ's evaluation of the medical evidence was supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole and the hypothetical question submitted to the VE accounted for all of the claimant's credible impairments. Court recommended the ALJ's decision be affirmed.09/26/2013
-Hattig v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence because there was no medical evidence of the claimant's work-related limitations to support the ALJ's finding at Step Five that the claimant could perform other work available in the national economy. Court recommended the case be reversed and remanded for further development of the record.09/16/2013
-Henn 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 the ALJ's analysis of whether the claimant suffered repeated episodes of decompensation and whether substance use was a contributing factor material to a finding of disability were not supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. The ALJ also erred in his evaluation of the medical evidence and the credibility of the claimant and third parties. Court recommended remand with instructions to conduct new analyses on these issues.09/05/2013
-Lopez v. Colvin -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ provided good reasons for the weight she gave to the medical opinions in the record and for discrediting claimant's subjective allegations. The VE's testimony based on the ALJ's hypothetical question was also supported by substantial evidence. Court affirmed the ALJ's decision that claimant was not disabled. 08/13/2013
-McCormick v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found ALJ erred in evaluating the treating physician's opinion and the claimant's credibility. Court recommended the case be reversed and remanded for further consideration and findings.07/26/2013
-Simmonds v. Colvin -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ's credibility determination and hypothetical question to the VE were supported by substantial evidence and affirmed the ALJ's decision that claimant was not disabled. 07/19/2013
-Tedford v. Colvin -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence because he failed to consider her somatization disorder diagnosis at step two and at step four in conducting his credibility analysis while determining her RFC. Case reversed and remanded for further proceedings. 07/02/2013
-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
-Newcomb v. Colvin -- Memorandum Opinion and Order 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 medical evidence, the credibility analysis, the hypothetical question to the VE, and his ultimate decision that claimant was not disabled.03/06/2013
-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