IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-0325
Filed October 26, 2016
JOHN C. GILBERT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA, TERRY MAPES, and AGENTS,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Paul R. Huscher,
Judge.
Inmate John Gilbert appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of
mandamus. AFFIRMED.
John C. Gilbert, Clarinda, pro se appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and John McCormally, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellees.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and Tabor, JJ.
2
DOYLE, Judge.
John Gilbert, an inmate at the Newton Correctional Facility, filed a petition
for writ of mandamus complaining of the operation of a barbershop in the facility. 1
He asserted the barbershop did not comply with Iowa law and was unsafe and
unsanitary. He sought monetary damages, punitive damages, and injunctive
relief to compel the barbershop to operate in compliance with the Iowa Code
(2015). The State filed a motion to dismiss, contending Gilbert’s claims were
barred for failure to comply with the Iowa Tort Claims Act, Iowa Code chapter
669. After a hearing, the district court dismissed Gilbert’s petition, concluding:
[Gilbert]’s claim for monetary damages against these state
agencies and employees falls squarely within the provisions of the
Iowa Tort Claims Act, section 669.1 et seq. The district court does
not have jurisdiction to determine such actions unless or until the
claim has been submitted pursuant to the provisions of that chapter
and a final disposition made by the attorney general or no
disposition was made within six months after the claim was
submitted. In this case, no claim has been made in accordance
with chapter 669, and [his] claims for monetary damages must be
dismissed. In addition, [Gilbert’s] claims for punitive damages are
specifically prohibited by section 669.4.
The remaining claims in [Gilbert]’s petition involve assertions
that the barbering operation within the prison system does not
comply with statutory mandates regarding sanitation, safety, and
skill. The State’s control and regulation of the barbering profession
is found in chapter 158 of the Iowa Code. However, section
158.2(7) provides that practices listed in section 158.1 do not
constitute barbering when performed by: “Offenders committed to
the custody of the director of the department of corrections who cut
the hair or trim or shave the beard of any other offender within a
correctional facility, without receiving direct compensation from the
person receiving the service.”
The court finds that [Gilbert]’s petition does not state a claim
upon which relief can be granted by the district court, and the same
must be dismissed.
Gilbert now appeals.
1
Gilbert has since been transferred to the Clarinda Correctional Facility.
3
We have carefully reviewed the record, the briefs of the parties, and the
district court’s well-reasoned order. Upon our review, we find any further
discussion of the issues by our court would not have precedential value or
change the disposition of this case. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
order dismissing Gilbert’s petition for writ of mandamus pursuant to Iowa Court
Rule 21.26(1)(a), (d), and (e).
AFFIRMED.