Williamson v. State ( 2024 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 23-1436
Filed October 30, 2024
CECIL WALLACE WILLIAMSON JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA, IMCC, IBOP, IDOC, and IMCC U.S. POSTAL SERVICE,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Ian K. Thornhill,
Judge.
A plaintiff appeals the dismissal of his civil action, which the district court
dismissed for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted. AFFIRMED.
Cecil W. Williamson Jr., Anamosa, self-represented appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and H. Loraine Wallace, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellees.
Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.
2
SCHUMACHER, Presiding Judge.
Cecil Williamson Jr., an Iowa inmate currently serving a sixteen-year prison
sentence, appeals a district court order that dismissed his civil action after
Williamson failed to set forth a claim for which relief could be granted. 1
Iowa appellate courts review a district court’s decision to dismiss an action
for correction of legal errors. U.S. Bank v. Barbour, 770 N.W.2d 350, 353 (Iowa
2009); see also Manning v. State, 654 N.W.2d 555, 558–59 (Iowa 2002). We will
affirm the dismissal “if the petition fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.” Hedlund v. State, 875 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2016).
In Iowa, the pleading is required to “give notice of the incident giving rise to
the claim and the general nature of the claim.” Cemen Tech, Inc. v. Three D Indus.,
L.L.C., 753 N.W.2d 1, 12 (Iowa 2008) (citing Roush v. Mahaska State Bank, 605
N.W.2d 6, 9 (Iowa 2000)). “[A] petition . . . is required to be read in light of the
allegations and legal ramifications contained within the four corners.” Roush, 605
N.W.2d at 9. This standard applies equally to self-represented litigants, with no
part of the obligation to properly litigate devolving upon the court. Conkey v. Hoak
Motors, Inc., 637 N.W.2d 170, 173 (Iowa 2001); see also Goodwin v. Iowa Dist.
Ct., 936 N.W.2d 634, 643 n.2 (Iowa 2019) (noting a court cannot read a claim into
a self-represented litigant’s pleading when the filing, even liberally construed,
presents no such claim).
1 The immediate action has been brought by Williamson completely through self-
representation.
3
Williamson’s petition accused “Iowa Officials, employees & individuals &
Entities” of numerous criminal acts against him.2 The district court determined
Williamson failed to set forth any civil claim entitling him to relief and ordered
Williamson to amend the filing. The district court also advised that failure to comply
could result in dismissal of the claim. Williamson then filed for an extension of time
to comply, which was granted, the order again advising Williamson that failure to
comply may result in dismissal. After Williamson submitted additional documents,
largely repeating the criminal allegations,3 the district court concluded Williamson
still failed to state an actionable claim and dismissed the petition.
Reading his petition in light of the criminal allegations that dominate
therein—even if liberally construed—the general nature of Williamson’s claim is an
attempted criminal prosecution. We agree with the district court that Williamson
cannot use civil litigation to prosecute the defendants for alleged criminal activity,
and we discern no civil claim for which relief may be granted. So Williamson’s
filing falls below the standard required to survive dismissal.
As part of this appeal we also address Williamson’s “Motions & Request to
Pause & Stay,” filed August 22, 2024. We are not persuaded that Williamson’s
2 Williamson’s initial complaint was prolix and, in essence, accused a range of Iowa
employees or agents of committing general crimes. The complaint was
accompanied by two other filings: one filing titled “When Birds Cry!” that contained
drawings, a biblical reference, and unexplained partial legal citations; and one
letter with complaints about his treatment in prison. Williamson failed to serve the
documents on the named defendants.
3 These additional documents included: a filing titled “evidence” that identified the
specific crimes he was alleging such as kidnapping, racketeering and organized
crime, mail-related offenses, and blackmail; a filing that detailed his theory about
alleged mail crimes and a related document appendix; and two administrative
filings concerning service to defendants and an application to defer filing fees.
4
claim of “unusual and compelling circumstances” are either unusual or compelling;
Williamson’s filing history has shown his ability to comply with court deadlines.
And to the extent Williamson’s motion asserts a stay is needed to comply
with the order dated July 25, 2024, his argument fails. The July order struck
improper filings. While that order stated that appellant’s brief could cite to
documents that are part of the district court record, such was not an order to amend
appellant’s brief. A previous order issued on April 8, 2024, advised Williamson
that appellate courts are courts of review that do not hear issues not presented
before the district court. Williamson filed his brief on May 5, 2024, and we have
considered such brief. Accordingly, the pending motion and request is denied.
We find no legal error in the district court’s dismissal. Because we agree
that Williamson failed to set forth any cognizable civil claim for which relief could
be granted, we affirm.4
AFFIRMED.
4 The State requests that this court dismiss the claim as frivolous and impose a
penalty against Williamson under Iowa Code section 610A.3 (2023). Because we
affirm on the merits, we decline to impose sanctions. But Williamson is advised
that persisting in pursuing civil actions that fail to state a claim for which relief may
be granted places him at risk that a future court may dismiss the action as frivolous
under 610A.2 and apply penalties, including “the loss of some or all of the earned
time credits.” See Iowa Code §§ 610A.2, 610A.3(1)(a).