IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 20-1408

Filed February 16, 2022

THOMAS G. RUTHERS, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

IOWA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, CIVIL COMMITMENT UNIT FOR 

SEX OFFENDERS,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cherokee County, Nancy 

Whittenburg, Judge.

Thomas Ruthers appeals the dismissal of his petition for judicial review of 

the treatment decision of the Iowa Department of Human Services, Civil 

Commitment Unit for Sex Offenders. AFFIRMED.

Michael J. Jacobsma of Jacobsma Law Firm, P.C., Orange City, for 

appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Chandlor Collins, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee.

Considered by May, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Vogel, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 

(2022).
2

VOGEL, Senior Judge.

On August 28, 2020, Thomas Ruthers Jr. filed a “Petition for Judicial 

Review, Iowa Code 17A.19 [(2020)]” in Cherokee County District Court. In his 

petition, he asserted he is a patient at the Civil Commitment Unit for Sex Offenders 

(CCUSO) and had been committed since a September 2017 order of the Mahaska 

County District Court. He further asserted he was progressing through the five 

treatment phases and the clinical team recently revoked his provisional Phase 4 

status. Ruthers sought judicial review of the CCUSO’s decision to revoke his 

provisional Phase 4 status on multiple grounds, including that it violated CCUSO’s 

rules. On the State’s motion, the court dismissed his petition, finding Ruthers was 

not entitled to judicial review because he failed to exhaust all administrative 

remedies. Ruthers appeals. We review his claim for correction of errors at law 

applying the provisions of Iowa Code chapter 17A. See Swanson v. Civ. 

Commitment Unit for Sex Offenders, 737 N.W.2d 300, 306 (Iowa 2007).

On appeal, Ruthers completely changes his claim from his pursuit under 

Iowa Code chapter 17A of an unfavorable treatment decision, to a request for 

annual judicial review under section 229A.8. This avenue was never raised in any 

of his filings below, nor was it addressed by the district court. Hence, his new

approach fails for lack of error preservation. See Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 

532, 537 (Iowa 2002) (“It is a fundamental doctrine of appellate review that issues 

must ordinarily be both raised and decided by the district court before we will 

decide them on appeal.”); see also Sierra Club Iowa Chapter v. Iowa Dep’t of 

Transp., 832 N.W.2d 636, 640–42 (Iowa 2013). Moreover, we agree with the 

analysis and findings of the district court as Ruthers’s claim was presented below.
3

Even if Ruthers had preserved error on his section 229A.8 claim, we would 

be required to dismiss this appeal. Ruthers is only entitled to seek judicial review 

of an annual review in the same county where he was committed. See Iowa Code 

§ 229A.8(3) (“The annual report shall be provided to the court that committed the 

person under this chapter.”). Had Ruthers framed his petition to seek judicial 

oversight of an annual review, the district court in Cherokee County would have 

lacked the authority to hear his case as it could only be filed in Mahaska County

where he was committed. See Taft v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 828 N.W.2d 309, 312–13 

(Iowa 2013).

Ruthers also claims he was denied due process because “no annual review 

has taken place and there was not even a post-deprivation hearing to determine if 

the revocation of [Ruthers’s] phase 4 status was warranted.”1 Again, Ruthers 

reframes his argument as if it were judicial review of an annual review, which it is 

not. Ruthers sought and received review of his Phase 4 revocation through the 

mechanisms set forth in CCUSO rules and the “Patient Handbook” he was 

provided. Moreover, when an annual review is held the provisions set forth in Iowa 

Code section 229A.8 are designed to ensure Ruthers’ due process rights are 

protected. In the record before us and the issues properly presented on appellate 

review, we find no due process violation. 

The district court’s decision is affirmed. 

AFFIRMED.

 

1

In its brief to us, the State acknowledges Ruthers has yet to receive his annual 

review, asserting the review was delayed twice due to COVID-19 protocols and 

once due to Ruthers’s own motion.