Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 1 Filed 09/22/2003 Page 1 of 13

7
United States District Court Southern District of Iowa Central Division

FILED
SEP 2 2 2003 SCOLUETRHKE,RUN.SD. IDSITSRc~CTTOCOUF1T
FIOWA

Jake Voshell, Jeff Winters, Burt Smith, Louie Jales, Scotty Flemming, Dave Baber, Joe Ervig, Bryan Keller, Wayne Quillen, Mike Joslin, Clayton Gregory, Rich Whitney, Thomas Keith, James Hall, and Kris Johnson,
Plaintiffs,
- VS-
John Spence, John Mathis, Ron G. Welder, Ruth Stockbridge, James Burton, Louis Galloway, Charels Harper, and Dave De Grange
Defendants,

Civil No.
Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief, and Damages

Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 1 Filed 09/22/2003 Page 2 of 13
8
I.
"Previous Lawsuits"
(1) Plaintiffs are in disciplinary detention and are being denied access to their legal materials necessary to address this issue at this time for this court.
II.
"Place of Present Confinement"
(2) All plaintiffs are currently confined in the Iowa State Penitentiary at Fort Madison, IA.
III.
"Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies"
(3) No Administrative remedies were persuaded do to the fact, disciplinary and classification proceedings cannot be challenged under the Department of Corrections Grievance Program.
IV.
"Parties"
Plaintiffs
(4) Jake Voshell, # 803644, Iowa State Penitentiary, PO Box 316, Fort Madison, IA 52627 Jeff Winters #1045267 Burt Smith #1098924 Louie Jales #087897 Scotty Flemming # 1028521 Dave Baber #803256 Joe Ewig #808517 Bryan Keller # 1080959 Wayne Quillan #804605

Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 1 Filed 09/22/2003 Page 3 of 13
9
Mike Joslin #1129552 Clayton Gregory #1139525 Rick Whitney #1050408 Thomas Keith #808596 James Hall #806039 and Kris Johnson #1016548 are all confined at the same address as plaintiff Voshell, except Scotty Flemming he has discharged his sentence. His address is c/o 201 SE Jackson St., Des Moines IA 50315.
Defendants
(5) John W. Spence, is the Executive Officer II for the Iowa Department of Corrections Central Office, 420 Watson Powell JR. Way, Des Moines IA 50309
John Mathis, Warden Ron G. Welder, Executive Assistant Ruth Stockbridge, Records Administrator James Burton, Internal Affairs Investigator Louis Galloway, Internal Affairs Investigator Charles Harper, Administrative Law Judge, and Dave De Grange, Investigator, each of which reside at the same address as the plaintiffs.
V.
"Statement of Claims"
"Introductions"
(6) Plaintiffs advance four (4) legal claims against Defendants. As such the plaintiffs will address these legal claims separately below - and discuss each Defendants' personal involvement separately below.

Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 1 Filed 09/22/2003 Page 4 of 13
10
"Legal Claim One"
(7) Everyone of the Plaintiffs' are members ofthe Religious faith, the Church of the New Song (CONS). Defendants have and are subjecting plaintiffs to "religious discrimination and persection" by removing every single one of the (CONS) members off the General population yard at the Iowa State Penitentiary (ISP), and locking them up in disciplinary segregation and other forms of segregation absent any misconduct or adequate reasons for doing so. The Defendants singled out every CONS member for locked and disciplinary status and did so to:
a. Close the CONS down; and b. Create falsified administrative records to introduce before
pending judicial proceedings, before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, regarding litigation on the CONS and c. Create falsified administrative records and statistics to use before Judicial Administrative and Legislative proceedings to:
1. Seek/obtain favorable decisions based on the alleged needs to control gang conduct in the Iowa Department of Corrections.
2. To obtain funding for lockup or control units, additional State employees.
Legal Claim Two
(8) Defendants' and their predecessor's for over two decades have repeatedly attempted to close down the CONS. This is a matter of judicial notice, and should be accepted as such. The most recent attempt was before Federal Judge Pratt in the United States District Court for the Southern District ofIowa.
(9) In and act of retaliation due to the most recent ruling by Judge Pratt, Defendants' retaliated against every single "active" member of the CONS, as well as three (3) people known to be studying to become CONS members, and subjected them to Disciplinary and Administrative segregation "absent absolutely and misconduct" on the part of the

Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 1 Filed 09/22/2003 Page 5 of 13
11
plaintiffs' .
(10) "Defendants' made up a gang" calling it the "peckerwoods" or "woods" (A), and then falsely claimed every single member of the CONS was a member of this alleged gang.
(A) Peckerwood or wood is a slang term use to describe a white person, just like "brother" is a slang term used between black men to describe a black man.
(11) Following a lengthy investigation the Defendants placed every single "active" member of CONS and three (3) people studying to become members of CONS on disciplinary report (8) alleging almost every single violation ofthe prison rules (C) alleging every active member of CONS and the three potential members were involved in the whole array of DOC rule violations including killing of another (D).
(12) "Defendant's made up a gang" calling it the peckerwoods or woods, they alleged every single active member and the three (3) potential members of CONS was a member of alleged group and retaliated against every single person by,
(8) Plaintiffs' want it made "very clear" they are not by "this" cause of action advancing a legal challenge to the outcome or disciplinary decision that resulted in disciplinary punishments being imposed against them.
(C) Plaintiffs' were not sanctioned by a disciplinary tribunal for acts of gang misconduct - fact is - they were cleared of acts of gang misconduct. They were found guilty of being members of a nonexistent gang the defendants made up to describe the member of the CONS.
(D) No one has been killed at the Iowa State Penitentiary in approximately ten (10) years. Locking them up in punitive and administrative segregation, as alleged members of a gang, due to the Defendants inability to close down the CONS through the judiciary.

Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 1 Filed 09/22/2003 Page 6 of 13
12
"Legal Claim Three"
(13) Defendants' relied on disciplinary findings that all the plaintiffs' were "gang members" in violation of DOC Rule # 42 (E), "Not that they had engaged in gang related conduct and locked them all up -
(E) DOC Rule IN-V-36, V . N . (Definition of offenses) describes Rule # 42 as follows: 42. Unauthorized Group/Gang Conduct: An offender commits an offense under this subsection when the offender:
(a) Originates, promotes, participates in, recruits for, etc., any unauthorized group, organization, gang, clique, association, etc., or
(b) Communicates involvement in any unauthorized groups through written or verbal means, physical appearance, hand signs, symbols. photographs, association, with others, etc., or
(c) Possesses, creates, reproduces, or transmits any materials related to unauthorized group/gang activities
based upon fact findings that every active member and the five potential members of CONS was/is a peckerwood or wood, and that being a peckerwood or wood - was being a gang member in violation of Rule 42 of the DOC Disciplinary Rules of Substantive Misconduct (F)
(14) Plaintiffs/ state, that to use a slang term unrelated to any gang, by Defendants', to re-title the CONS membership to calling them a gang, and then say that because they are a gang they've violated Rule #42, is "objectionably unreasonable" "interpretation and application oftheir rules to the facts of this case" as defined in Moorman-v-Thalacher, numbers 95 - 2245 and 95 - 2297 (8th Circuit Court of Appeals dated May 14, 1996).

Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 1 Filed 09/22/2003 Page 7 of 13
13
(15) Plaintiffs' further state - that it si no Rule violation of Rule # 42 "to be a gang" member if you are not involved in gang conduct
(F) There is no gang in ISP called the "peckerwoods or woods". Defendants' created this gang - by saying that because a term used to describe a "white" man was used by CONS members are a gang called the peckerwoods or woods.
(16) Plaintiffs' advance a Constitutional challenge to the Rules and facts of this case as being "objectively unreasonable" in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
"Legal Claim Four"
(17) From June and to July of2002, Defendants' locked up everyone of the plaintiffs' advancing an array of charges of gang misconduct, (G). Fact Finding made by the ALJ made clear "Not one of the plaintiffs had committed a single act of gang misconduct." Plaintiffs' were declared to be peckerwoods or woods and as such "gang members and solely because they were declared "gang members" they were sanctioned with harsh disciplinary sanction that was a typical and and significant hardship", and singled out for these punishments, "while no other "gangs", that are on fact,
(G) Plaintiff Hall was never alleged to be involved in gang related conduct, yet he was found to have been along with the other CONS members, because he is a CONS member who admits the slang term peckerwood applies to him as a white man.
Clearly documented gangs throughout the entire DOC, nor a single member of any of these other gangs - have been locked up and punished only because they are a gang member.
(18) Plaintiffs' (although not gang members) have been alleged as such, and under Rule 42 have been denied due process and equal protection under the rules contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United

Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 1 Filed 09/22/2003 Page 8 of 13
14
States Constitution.
Personal Involvement of Defendants' Spence, Mathis, Welder,
Stockbridge, and Harper
(19) Defendants' Spence, Mathis, Welder, and Stockbridge acted as "appellate officers" regarding either the disciplinary or classification proceedings regarding this case and refused or failed to take corrective action regarding, Defendants' Burton, Galloway, Harper and De Grange's conduct of an unconstitutional nature.
(20) Defendant Harper as the ALl failed to take corrective action regarding the unconstitutional conduct of Defendants' Burton, Galloway and Mathis, when he acted in conspiracy with them as set forth below.
(21) Defendants' Burton (H) and Gallaway, acting as investigators "created and assembled a whole array of false charge;!." against all the Plainti lIs as justification to issue them disciplinary reports. Burton and Gallaway's actions were a direct result of directions issued them by Defendant Mathis (and other - at this time - unknown DOC personnel).
(22) Defendants De Grange acting as an investigator failed to take any corrective action against Burton, Gallaway and Mathis when he knew or should have known their conduct to be unconstitutional.
(H) Burton in a case before Federal Judge Donald E. O'Brian was found to have falsified and corrupted an investigation involving i!Ullate George Goff. Burton's unethical conduct as an investigator is a matter of judicial notice and should be accepted as sllch.
IV "Relief Requested"
(23) Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment as it concerns all the following:
a). Plaintiffs' have been subject to religious

Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 1 Filed 09/22/2003 Page 9 of 13
15
uiscrimination and persecution as well as retaliatory treatment by Defendants contrary to the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
b). Plaintiffs' have been "retaliated" against by Defendants' because they either are members of a class of CONS members, potential CONS members learning to become CONS members, or parties to parties to Federal Litigation concerns the CONS.
c). Defendants' created falsified investigative and disciplinary records to use to:
1). retaliate against the membership of the CONS;
2). discriminate and persecute the members of the CONS;
3). use of Federal Judicial proceedings against members of the CONS;
4). to remove every member of the CONS from the prisons general population status to close down the CONS;
5). obtain and secure financial and political objectives relative to an alleged DOC gang problem.
d). Defendants' use of disciplinary Rule #42 to impose disciplinary sanctions on Plaintiffs as "alleged" gang members, absent any findings of guilt that plaintiffs' participated in any improper gang related conduct is an "objectively unreasonable" interpretation and application of Defendants' own rules to the facts of this case.

Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 1 Filed 09/22/2003 Page 10 of 13
16
e). Defendants' discriminated, denying Plaintiffs due process and equal protection when they disciplined them for only being "alleged" gang members (absent any improper gang related conduct) - when no other DOC has been or will be subject to such discipline.
(24) Plaintiffs' seek injunctive relief as follows:
a). enjoining Defendants from subjecting the Plaintiff.5 and other members of the CONS from further discriminatory treatment and persecution due to being members of the CONS.
b). enjoining Defendants from any further acts of retaliation against Plaintiffs or the membership or Ihe CONS for seeking legal redress fiom the courts or other First Amendments protected activities.
c). enjoining Defendants from using in any judicial proceeding, administrative or legislative the investigations and disciplinary records falsified by the defendants to reflect any of the following:
I. That Plaintiffs' are an alleged gang called the "peckerwood" or "woods"
2. That the CONS membership is a gang
3. That Defendants require from the legislature or other administrative agencies ofthe states oflowa or Federal Government, additional financial support to combat alleged gang problems in the Iowa Department of Corrections.
d). enjoining Defendants from imposing disciplinary punishments against the plaintiffs'; CONS members

Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 1 Filed 09/22/2003 Page 11 of 13
17
or any other prisoner's of the Iowa Department of Corrections for alleged violations of DOC Rule #42 "based only on the fact the may be or are a gang member absent evidence to support actual gang misconduct or participation.
e). enjoining Defendants from discriminating against PlaintitTs' and other CONS members - by imposing disciplinary punishments against them for "ONLY BEING ALLEGED GANG MEMBERS" - when no other gangs or their members are being made subject to discipline for the very same reason or under the very same rules and procedures.
25). Plaintiffs' seek compensatory damages in the amount of$500,000.00 from each Defendant to each Plaintiff.
26). Plaintiffs' seek punitive damages in the amount of $1 ,000,000.00 from each Defendant to each Plaintiff.
27). Plaintiffs' seek a trial by jury on all issues triable by jury.
28). Plaintiffs' seek cost of this action.
29). Plaintiffs' seek appointment oflegal counsel.
30). Plaintiffs' seek any and all further relief as this Court deems just.
Dated: /' -/:?'_ _ _~., 2003.
We the undersigned declare under penalty of peljury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of our knowledge and belief by our signatures below:
Iowa State Penitentiary PO Box 3\6 Fort Madison, IA 52627

Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 1 Filed 09/22/2003 Page 12 of 13
18
Notice: See attached page for signatures of all additional Plaintiffs' to this action:

Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 1 Filed 09/22/2003 Page 13 of 13

-~

~~----~~---------~-~--

- - - - - ~- --~---~----

-~

~------~---~-~~-~---

- - - ~-~~-~--~------~~

- - - ------------~~~~

~~-----~--

~-- -------~----~-~------~---~-~-~----- -~- ~-

-

- - - - - - - - - - - ~~----~-~---~------~~ ~

-~---

- .---~- -~ ~ -~ ~-- ---~ ~

~-~---- ~

-~--~~ -~---~--~.

-------

- - - - - - --- ~ -~

-~---~- ~

-- - - - -

--- ~-~

- - - ----~-----~-~--

-~~~-----~-----~----------~--

---~

---~ ~--~~~---------

~

--~

~

-----~~-

 
 Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 59 Filed 02/22/2005 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
CENTRAL DIVISION

JAKE VOSHELL, et al., Plaintiffs,
vs. JOHN SPENCE, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB ORDER STAYING CASE

On December 2, 2004, the Court entered an order in this case indicating that the outcome of this case will be affected by rulings in Goff, et al. v. Graves, et al. , No. 4:97-cv-90341, a case that concerned the Church of the New Song, also known as CONS.
Iowa Department of Corrections officials have sought court relief with respect to CONS in Wycoff, et al. v. Brewer, et al. , No. 4:05-cv-00068-RP-RAW. On February 18, 2005, the Court in Wycoff scheduled proceedings in that case, including an evidentiary hearing. Because the outcome of the proceedings in Wycoff very likely will impact the continued validity of Plaintiffs’ claims in Voshell, the Court stays the proceedings in Voshell pending the outcome of Wycoff or upon a showing of good cause by the parties to resume proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 22nd day of February, 2005.

 
 Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 67 Filed 07/23/09 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
CENTRAL DIVISION

JAKE VOSHELL, et al., Plaintiffs,
vs. JOHN SPENCE, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS

Plaintiffs, now represented by counsel, bring this case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants wrongfully disciplined them for their involvement in Church of the New Song (CONS). They seek declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and damages.
This case was stayed on February 22, 2005, pending the outcome of Wycoff v. Brewer, No. 4:05-cv-00068 (S.D. Iowa) (recaptioned Smith v. Ault). On April 2, 2009, the Honorable Robert W. Pratt entered an order in Smith v. Ault, granting prison officials relief from previous injunctions that allowed inmate members of CONS to exercise their religion equally with other religions and that allowed CONS inmate-ministers to visit segregated CONS inmates.
In light of the ruling in Smith v. Ault, this Court lifted the stay, and Defendants moved for summary judgment. Plaintiffs did not file a resistance, and the Court, on its own motion, extended the time for Plaintiffs to resist the motion. To date, Plaintiffs have not resisted the motion. For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ motion.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment “shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). To preclude the entry of summary judgment, the nonmovant must make a sufficient showing on every essential element of its case for which it has the burden of proof at trial.

Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 67 Filed 07/23/09 Page 2 of 4
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Cont’l Grain Co. v. Frank Seitzinger Storage, Inc., 837 F.2d 836, 838 (8th Cir. 1988). The nonmoving party must go beyond the pleading and by affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. The quantum of proof that the nonmoving party must produce is not precisely measurable, but it must be “enough evidence so that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmovant.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 257 (1986). On a motion for summary judgment, the Court views all the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and gives that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the facts. United States v. City of Columbia, Mo., 914 F.2d 151, 153 (8th Cir. 1990); Woodsmith Publ’g Co. v. Meredith Corp., 904 F.2d 1244, 1247 (8th Cir. 1990).
SUMMARY OF MATERIAL FACTS The following facts are undisputed or taken in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are inmates who, during the time relevant to the complaint, were incarcerated at the Iowa State Penitentiary (ISP) in Fort Madison, Iowa. They are Jacob Voshell, Jeff Winters, Burt Smith, Louie Jales, Scott Fleming, David Baber, Joseph Ewig, Bryan Keller, Wayne Quillen, Jr., Michael Joslin, Clayton Gregory, Richard Whitney, Thomas Keith, James Hall, and Kristopher Johnson. Defendants are the following correctional staff employed at ISP: John Spence, John Mathes, Ron Welder, Ruth Stockbridge, James Burton, Louis Galloway, Charles Harper, and Dave DeGrange. For years, members of CONS and prison officials have been at odds over the genuineness of Church of the New Song as a religion. In dissolving the protective injunctions, Judge Pratt agreed with prison officials that some inmates used CONS as a way to violate prison rules prohibiting contraband, violence, and gang activity; and it was no longer equitable to continue giving CONS protected status in light of CONS inmates’ abuse of the decrees. Smith v. Ault,
2

Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 67 Filed 07/23/09 Page 3 of 4
No. 4:05-cv-00068 (S.D. Iowa) (Order of Apr. 2, 2009, adopting Dec. 5, 2008, R&R, Clerk’s No. 72, and Clerk’s No. 69, at 28-30). The ruling in Smith v. Ault was not appealed.
Plaintiffs in the instant case were disciplined for violating prison rules against gang activity. They allege Defendants’ acts were really in retaliation for their exercise of CONS beliefs. The punishments imposed included loss of good time or earned time, and none of the disciplinary decisions have been overturned. None of the Plaintiffs filed prison grievances that alleged the Defendant prison officials retaliated against them for exercising their religious rights. None of the Plaintiffs sustained physical injuries as a result of the allegations they raise in the complaint.
DISCUSSION Defendants argue they are entitled to summary judgment for the following reasons: (1) Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); (2) Plaintiffs allege no physical injury, a prerequisite to an action for mental or emotional injury under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e); (3) Defendants did not file disciplinary reports against Plaintiffs in retaliation for protected activity; (4) thirteen of the Plaintiffs’ requests for declaratory and injunctive relief are moot because those inmates are no longer at the prison; (5) Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994); and (6) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. This Court takes judicial notice of the proceedings in Smith v. Ault, No. 4:05-cv-00068 (S.D. Iowa), and it adopts Judge Pratt’s ruling that CONS is no longer entitled to protected status in the prison. Plaintiffs state in the complaint that they did not exhaust administrative remedies because they could not challenge their disciplinary and classification proceedings under the prison grievance program. Even assuming this is true, and assuming that not all of Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, or moot, the Court concludes that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiffs’ claims of retaliation fail. There was some evidence on the record that Plaintiffs violated prison disciplinary rules, and there is no evidence
3

Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 67 Filed 07/23/09 Page 4 of 4 on this summary judgment record that retaliation was the motivating factor behind the discipline. See Goff v. Burton, 7 F.3d 734, 738 (8th Cir. 1993) (inmate must show that but for protected activity, prison officials would not have acted), cert denied., 512 U.S. 1209 (1994). Based on the undisputed material facts, no reasonable juror could find in Plaintiffs’ favor, and Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
SUMMARY For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Judgment shall be entered in favor of Defendants. This case is dismissed. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 23rd day of July, 2009.
4

 
 Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 68 Filed 07/24/09 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

Jake Vosell, et al.,

Plaintiff v
John Spence, et al.,

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE CASE NUMBER: 4-03-cv-40522

Defendant
JURY VERDICT . This action came before the Court for trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.
DECISION BY COURT. This action came before the Court. The issues have been considered and a decision has been rendered.
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs.

Date: July 24, 2009

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
_/s_/_D__o_n_n_e_ll_V__a_n_ce________________ By: Deputy Clerk

 
 Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 66 Filed 05/22/09 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
CENTRAL DIVISION

JAKE VOSHELL, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. JOHN SPENCE, et al.,
Defendant.

No. 4:03-cv-40522
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

COMES NOW the above-captioned Defendants John Spence, John Mathes, Ron G.
Welder, Ruth Stockbridge, James Burton, Louis Galloway, Charles Harper, and Dave DeGrange,
by and through undersigned counsel and MOVE for Summary Judgment in this action. In
support thereof, they refer the Court to the Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, and
Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment submitted in this matter.
WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that the Court grant Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment, dismiss this case, and assess costs to the Plaintiff.
THOMAS J. MILLER Attorney General of Iowa
/s/ H. LORAINE WALLACE H. LORAINE WALLACE ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS Assistant Attorney General Special Litigation/Corrections Hoover State Office Building Des Moines, IA 50319 (515) 281-6670 FAX: (515) 281-4902
Original filed.

Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 66 Filed 05/22/09 Page 2 of 2

Copy mailed to:
Mr. Patrick E. Ingram Mears Law Office 209 E. Washington St. Paul-Helen Bldg., Suite 203 Iowa City, IA 52240

Proof of Service
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing instrument was served
upon each of the persons identified as receiving a copy by delivery in
the following manner on May 22, 2009.

9U.S. Mail 9Hand Delivery 9Federal Express :Electronically

9FAX 9Overnight Courier 9Other

Signature: /s/ H. LORAINE WALLACE

2

 
 Case: 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB As of: 07/12/2013 12:50 AM CDT 1 of 7
TERMED,1983pr
U.S. District Court Southern District of Iowa (Central) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:03−cv−40522−JEG−CFB

Voshell, et al v. Spence, et al Assigned to: Chief Judge James E. Gritzner Referred to: Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 09/22/2003 Date Terminated: 07/24/2009 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Jake Voshell

represented by Patrick E Ingram Mears Law Office 209 East Washington Suite 203 Iowa City, IA 52240 319 351 4363 Fax: 351 7911 Email: patingram@mearslawoffice.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Scotty Flemming

represented by Patrick E Ingram (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jeff Winters

represented by Patrick E Ingram (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Burt James Smith

represented by Patrick E Ingram (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Louie Jales

represented by Patrick E Ingram (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff David James Baber

represented by Patrick E Ingram (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Joe Weig

represented by Patrick E Ingram (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB As of: 07/12/2013 12:50 AM CDT 2 of 7

Plaintiff Bryan Keller

represented by Patrick E Ingram (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Wayne Quillan

represented by Patrick E Ingram (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Mike Joslin

represented by Patrick E Ingram (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Clayton Gregory

represented by Patrick E Ingram (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Rick Whitney

represented by Patrick E Ingram (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Thomas Keith

represented by Patrick E Ingram (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff James Hall

represented by Patrick E Ingram (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kris Johnson

represented by Patrick E Ingram (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant John Spence

represented by H Loraine Wallace IOWA ATTORNEY GENERAL −− Des Moines 1305 E WALNUT STREET DES MOINES, IA 50319 515 281 6670 Fax: 515 281 4902 Email: lwallac@ag.state.ia.us

Case: 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB As of: 07/12/2013 12:50 AM CDT 3 of 7

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant John Mathis

represented by H Loraine Wallace (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Ronald Welder

represented by H Loraine Wallace (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Ruth Stockbridge Records Administrator

represented by H Loraine Wallace (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant James R Burton

represented by H Loraine Wallace (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Louis Galloway

represented by H Loraine Wallace (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Charles Harper

represented by H Loraine Wallace (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Dave DeGrange

represented by H Loraine Wallace (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/22/2003 09/22/2003
09/22/2003
09/22/2003 11/12/2003

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT (cc: pltf(s)). (dv) (Entered: 09/22/2003)
2 MOTION by plaintiff Jake Voshell for appointment of counsel before Judge James E. Gritzner (dv) (Entered: 09/22/2003)
3 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL by plaintiff Jake Voshell (dv) (Entered: 09/22/2003)
REMARK no filing fee or motion for ifp (dv) (Entered: 09/22/2003)
4 ORDER by Judge James E. Gritzner; Plaintiff shall fill out the forms attached or pay $150.00 (cc: all counsel) (dv) (Entered: 11/12/2003)

Case: 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB As of: 07/12/2013 12:50 AM CDT 4 of 7

11/28/2003 12/08/2003 01/23/2004
02/02/2004 02/02/2004 02/02/2004
02/04/2004 02/11/2004 02/11/2004
02/11/2004 02/11/2004
02/11/2004 02/11/2004
02/13/2004 02/17/2004 02/17/2004
02/17/2004 02/17/2004 02/17/2004 02/17/2004

FILING FEE PAID: on 11/24/03 in the amount of $ 50.00, receipt # 68010. (gk) (Entered: 11/28/2003)
FILING FEE PAID: on 12/8/03 in the amount of $ 100.00, receipt # 68133. no amount due (dv) (Entered: 12/08/2003)
5 INITIAL REVIEW ORDER by Judge James E. Gritzner granting motion for appointment of counsel [2−1] Patrick E Ingram; Because the filing fee has been paid, no further money will be withdrawn from the inmates' accounts for the filing fee. Service of process shall issue by mail to defendants and to the AG (cc: all counsel) (dv) (Entered: 01/23/2004)
6 RESPONSE for IFP form by plaintiff Jeff Winters [5−1] re: order (don) (Entered: 02/02/2004)
7 FORM C: CERTIFICATE OF INMATE ACCOUNT AND ASSETS by plaintiff Jeff Winters re [5−1] order (don) (Entered: 02/02/2004)
8 FORM D: AUTHORIZATION TO DEBIT TRUST ACCOUNT TO PAY FEDERAL COURT FILING FEE by plaintiff Jeff Winters re [5−1] order (don) (Entered: 02/02/2004)
9 MAIL Returned [5−1] addressed to defendant John Spence (John Spence is not than employee of ISP. (don) (Entered: 02/04/2004)
10 MOTION by plaintiff Jake Voshell to proceed in forma pauperis before Judge James E. Gritzner (dv) (Entered: 02/12/2004)
11 FORM D: AUTHORIZATION TO DEBIT TRUST ACCOUNT TO PAY FEDERAL COURT FILING FEE by plaintiff Jake Voshell re [5−1] order (dv) (Entered: 02/12/2004)
12 MOTION by plaintiff Dave Baber to proceed in forma pauperis before Judge James E. Gritzner (dv) (Entered: 02/12/2004)
13 FORM D: AUTHORIZATION TO DEBIT TRUST ACCOUNT TO PAY FEDERAL COURT FILING FEE by plaintiff Dave Baber re [5−1] order (dv) (Entered: 02/12/2004)
14 MOTION by plaintiff Mike Joslin to proceed in forma pauperis before Judge James E. Gritzner (dv) (Entered: 02/12/2004)
15 FORM D: AUTHORIZATION TO DEBIT TRUST ACCOUNT TO PAY FEDERAL COURT FILING FEE by plaintiff Mike Joslin re [5−1] order (dv) (Entered: 02/12/2004)
16 MOTION by plaintiff Kris Johnson to proceed in forma pauperis before Judge James E. Gritzner (dv) (Entered: 02/13/2004)
17 FORM C: CERTIFICATE OF INMATE ACCOUNT AND ASSETS by plaintiff Burt James Smith re [5−1] order (dv) (Entered: 02/17/2004)
18 FORM D: AUTHORIZATION TO DEBIT TRUST ACCOUNT TO PAY FEDERAL COURT FILING FEE by plaintiff Burt James Smith re [5−1] order (dv) (Entered: 02/17/2004)
19 MOTION by plaintiff Burt James Smith to proceed in forma pauperis before Judge James E. Gritzner (dv) (Entered: 02/17/2004)
20 MOTION by plaintiff Wayne Quillan to proceed in forma pauperis before Judge James E. Gritzner (dv) (Entered: 02/17/2004)
21 MAIL Returned [5−1] addressed to plaintiff Scotty Flemming (dv) (Entered: 02/17/2004)
22 ORDER by Judge James E. Gritzner re [9−1] mail; Plaintiffs must immediately provide the Clerk with the correct name and current address for the unserved defendant, if available, so service can be obtained. (cc: all counsel) (dv) (Entered: 02/17/2004)

Case: 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB As of: 07/12/2013 12:50 AM CDT 5 of 7

02/19/2004 02/19/2004
02/25/2004 02/26/2004 02/27/2004 03/01/2004 03/04/2004 03/08/2004
03/09/2004 03/24/2004 03/26/2004 03/29/2004 04/05/2004
04/07/2004
04/22/2004 06/21/2004 06/21/2004
06/23/2004
06/23/2004 06/28/2004

23 MOTION by plaintiff Bryan Keller to proceed in forma pauperis before Judge James E. Gritzner (dv) (Entered: 02/19/2004)
24 FORM D: AUTHORIZATION TO DEBIT TRUST ACCOUNT TO PAY FEDERAL COURT FILING FEE by plaintiff Bryan Keller re [5−1] order (dv) (Entered: 02/19/2004)
25 LETTER to court from plaintiff Kris Johnson (dv) (Entered: 02/25/2004)
26 LETTER to court from plaintiff Jake Voshell (dv) (Entered: 02/26/2004)
27 MAIL Returned [22−1] addressed to plaintiff Scotty Flemming (dv) (Entered: 02/27/2004)
28 LETTER to court from plaintiff Dave Baber (dv) (Entered: 03/01/2004)
29 RESPONSE by plaintiff Jeff Winters [22−1] re: order (dv) (Entered: 03/04/2004)
30 ORDER by Judge James E. Gritzner re [22−1] order; Plaintiffs have sent in an address for John Spence. Service of process shall issue by mail to defendant Spence. The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to both Plaintiffs and the Mears Law Office. The Clerk of Court also shall send a complete copy of the file to the Mears Law Office (cc: all counsel) (dv) (Entered: 03/09/2004)
REMARK copy of file sent to John Spence and Mears Law Firm (dv) (Entered: 03/10/2004)
31 MOTION by plaintiff Jake Voshell for preliminary injunction before Judge James E. Gritzner (dv) (Entered: 03/24/2004)
32 ANSWER by defendants complaint [1−1] (dv) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
33 MAIL Returned [30−1] addressed to plaintiff Scotty Flemming (dv) (Entered: 03/29/2004)
34 MOTION by defendant John Spence, defendant John Mathis, defendant Ronald Welder, defendant Ruth Stockbridge, defendant James R Burton, defendant Louis Galloway, defendant Charles Harper, defendant Dave DeGrange to strike motion for preliminary injunction before Judge James E. Gritzner [31−1] before Judge James E. Gritzner (don) (Entered: 04/05/2004)
35 ORDER by Judge James E. Gritzner denying motion for preliminary injunction [31−1] ; Dispositive Motion ddl set for 8/6/04 (cc: all counsel, all plaintiffs with motion filed 3/24/04) (don) Modified on 04/07/2004 (Entered: 04/07/2004)
36 MAIL Returned [35−2] addressed to plaintiff Scotty Flemming (dv) (Entered: 04/22/2004)
37 MOTION by plaintiff Burt James Smith for temporary restraining order and to waive existing counsel before Judge James E. Gritzner (dv) (Entered: 06/21/2004)
38 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff Burt James Smith in support [37−1] of motion for temporary restraining order and to waive existing counsel before Judge James E. Gritzner (dv) (Entered: 06/21/2004)
39 MOTION by defendant to strike motion for temporary restraining order and to waive existing counsel before Judge James E. Gritzner [37−1] before Judge James E. Gritzner (dv) (Entered: 06/23/2004)
40 MOTION by defendant to strike memorandum [38−1] before Judge James E. Gritzner (dv) (Entered: 06/23/2004)
41 ORDER by Judge James E. Gritzner finding the motion to strike memorandum [38−1] [40−1] moot, finding the motion to strike motion for temporary restraining order and to waive existing counsel [37−1] moot [39−1] denying motion for temporary restraining order and to waive existing counsel [37−1] see order for specifics...(cc: all counsel) (ld) (Entered: 06/28/2004)

Case: 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB As of: 07/12/2013 12:50 AM CDT 6 of 7

07/12/2004
07/26/2004 08/24/2004 09/07/2004 09/13/2004 10/21/2004
11/12/2004 11/16/2004
11/22/2004 11/22/2004
11/23/2004 12/02/2004 12/02/2004
12/02/2004 12/02/2004

42 ORDER by Judge James E. Gritzner denying motion to strike motion for preliminary injunction [31−1] [34−1], granting motion to proceed in forma pauperis [23−1], granting motion to proceed in forma pauperis [20−1], granting motion to proceed in forma pauperis [19−1], granting motion to proceed in forma pauperis [16−1], granting motion to proceed in forma pauperis [14−1], granting motion to proceed in forma pauperis [12−1], granting motion to proceed in forma pauperis [10−1] (cc: all counsel) (dv) (Entered: 07/12/2004)
43 MAIL Returned [41−1] addressed to plaintiff Scotty Flemming. "Undeliverable as address" (fm) (Entered: 07/26/2004)
44 ORDER ; Jury trial set for 02/14/05 at 9:00 ; Final pretrial cnf (MAG) set for 02/02/05 at 11:00 /s/JRR, Clerk (cc: all counsel) (dv) (Entered: 08/24/2004)
45 MAIL Returned [44−2] addressed to plaintiff Scotty Flemming (dv) (Entered: 09/07/2004)
46 LETTER to court from plaintiff Louie Jales (Joles) (don) (Entered: 09/13/2004)
47 ORDER. Referred to Mag. Judge Bremer to determine if settlement conference should be held and if so to schedule; counsel shall confer and file status report within 30 days of this order indicating whether or not they want the Court to schedule a settlement conference. Entered by Judge James E. Gritzner on 10/21/2004. (nlh) (Entered: 10/21/2004)
48 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Scotty Flemming which included 47 Order, no forwarding address given. (don, ) (Entered: 11/12/2004)
49 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Patrick Ingram for Dave Baber, Scotty Flemming, Clayton Gregory, James Hall, Louie Jales, Kris Johnson, Mike Joslin, Thomas Keith, Bryan Keller, Wayne Quillan, Burt James Smith, Jake Voshell, Joe Weig, Rick Whitney, Jeff Winters. Responses due by 12/3/2004 (don, ) (Entered: 11/17/2004)
50 STATUS REPORT by James R Burton, Dave DeGrange, Louis Galloway, Charles Harper, John Mathis, John Spence, Ruth Stockbridge, Ronald Welder. (Wallace, H) (Entered: 11/22/2004)
51 TEXT ORDER Setting Hearing on Plaintiff's counsel's 49 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney: Motion Hearing set for 12/1/2004 10:00 AM by telephone conference call placed by counsel for Plaintiff before Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer. Entered by Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer on 11/22/2004. (mlr) (Entered: 11/22/2004)
52 RESPONSE to Motion re 49 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Defendants' Resistance to Motion to Withdraw filed by James R Burton, Dave DeGrange, Louis Galloway, Charles Harper, John Mathis, John Spence, Ruth Stockbridge, Ronald Welder. Replies due by 12/6/2004. (Wallace, H) (Entered: 11/23/2004)
53 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer: Hearing held on 12/2/2004 on resisted Motion to Withdraw (#49). Appearing were Pat Ingram for Plaintiffs and Lorraine Wallace for Defendants. Order entered separately. (mlr) (Entered: 12/02/2004)
54 ORDER denying 49 Atty Ingram's Mot. to Withdraw. Deadline for Def. to file status report is 12/7/04. Plaintiffs to contact Atty Ingram no later than 12/31/04 indicating whether they intend to continue as Pl. in this case. A copy of this Order will be mailed to each Plaintiff individually. Trial set for 2/14/05 &FPTC set for 2/2/05 continued and will be reset after status of case is determined. Entered by Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer on 12/2/2004. (mlr) (Entered: 12/02/2004)
55 STATUS REPORT by James R Burton, Dave DeGrange, Louis Galloway, Charles Harper, John Mathis, John Spence, Ruth Stockbridge, Ronald Welder. (Wallace, H) (Entered: 12/02/2004)
56 AFFIDAVIT of Jake Voshell by Jake Voshell. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (don, ) (Entered: 12/06/2004)

Case: 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB As of: 07/12/2013 12:50 AM CDT 7 of 7

12/15/2004 12/15/2004 12/20/2004 02/22/2005 04/09/2009 04/27/2009 04/30/2009 05/04/2009 05/05/2009 05/18/2009
05/19/2009 05/19/2009 05/22/2009
07/23/2009 07/24/2009

57 ORDER denying Plaintiff Baber's request to receive copies of all pleadings. See order for particulars. Entered by Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer on 12/15/2004. (mlr) (Entered: 12/15/2004)
Trial and Final Pretrial Conference canceled per Order #54 on 12/2/2004. (mlr) (Entered: 12/15/2004)
58 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Scotty Flemming which included 54 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, (don, ) (Entered: 12/20/2004)
59 ORDER STAYING CASE pending outcome of Case No. 4:05−cv−00068−RP−RAW (Wycoff v. Brewer). Entered by Judge James E. Gritzner on 2/22/2005. (nlh) (Entered: 02/22/2005)
60 ORDER FOR STATUS REPORT. Status Report due by 4/27/2009. See order for particulars. Signed by Judge James E. Gritzner on 4/9/2009. (nlh) (Entered: 04/09/2009)
61 STATUS REPORT by John Mathis, Ronald Welder, Ruth Stockbridge, James R Burton, Louis Galloway, Charles Harper, Dave DeGrange, John Spence. (Wallace, H) (Entered: 04/27/2009)
62 STATUS REPORT from the Plaintiff by Jake Voshell. (Ingram, Patrick) (Entered: 04/30/2009)
63 ORDER lifting stay. Parties may file dispositive motions by not later than 5/18/2009/ Signed by Judge James E. Gritzner on 5/4/2009. (nlh) (Entered: 05/04/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Dispositive Motion Deadline due by 5/18/2009. Per order 63 . (don) (Entered: 05/05/2009)
64 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motion Motions referred to Celeste F. Bremer. by John Mathis, Ronald Welder, Ruth Stockbridge, James R Burton, Louis Galloway, Charles Harper, Dave DeGrange, John Spence. Responses due by 6/4/2009 (Wallace, H) (Entered: 05/18/2009)
65 TEXT ORDER granting 64 unresisted motion for extension of time. Any dispositive motion shall be filed on or before 5/22/2009. Signed by Judge James E. Gritzner on 5/19/2009. (nlh) (Entered: 05/19/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Dispositive Motion Deadline due by 5/22/2009. Per Order 65 . (don, ) (Entered: 05/19/2009)
66 MOTION for Summary Judgment by John Mathis, Ronald Welder, Ruth Stockbridge, James R Burton, Louis Galloway, Charles Harper, Dave DeGrange, John Spence. Responses due by 6/15/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Undisputed Facts, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Appendix pp. 1−66, # 4 Appendix pp. 67−160)(Wallace, H) (Entered: 05/22/2009)
67 ORDER granting 66 Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of Defendants. This case is dismissed. See order for particulars. Signed by Judge James E. Gritzner on 7/23/2009. (nlh) (Entered: 07/23/2009)
68 JUDGMENT in favor of Charles Harper, Dave DeGrange, James R Burton, John Mathis, John Spence, Louis Galloway, Ronald Welder, Ruth Stockbridge against Bryan Keller, Burt James Smith, Clayton Gregory, David James Baber, Jake Voshell, James Hall, Jeff Winters, Joe Weig, Kris Johnson, Louie Jales, Mike Joslin, Rick Whitney, Scotty Flemming, Thomas Keith, Wayne Quillan. Signed by Clerk Marjorie Krahn on 7/24/2009. (don, ) (Entered: 07/24/2009)