Court Opinion

ID: 9394094
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-12 14:03:54.477891+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:58.308612
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

                                     No. 21–0909

                   Submitted October 13, 2022—Filed May 12, 2023

JASON CARTER,

      Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF IOWA, MARK D. LUDWICK, Special Agent of the Iowa Department
of Public Safety and MARK D. LUDWICK, in his individual capacity,

      Appellees.

      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, William P. Kelly,

Judge.

      The plaintiff appeals the district court’s grant of the defendants’ preanswer

motion to dismiss his constitutional tort claims. AFFIRMED.

      Per curiam. Mansfield and May, JJ., took no part in the consideration or

decision of the case.

      Nathan A. Olson (argued) and Christine E. Branstad of Branstad & Olson,

Des Moines, and Alison F. Kanne of Wandro & Associates, P.C., Des Moines, for

appellant.

      Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tessa M. Register (argued) and Jeffrey

C. Peterzalek, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellees.
                                              2

PER CURIAM.

       After a jury found Jason Carter liable in a civil action for the wrongful

death of his mother and awarded his mother’s estate $10 million, another jury

acquitted him of the related criminal murder charge. Carter then brought this

civil lawsuit against Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation Special Agent Mark

Ludwick—who investigated his mother’s murder—and the State (as Agent

Ludwick’s employer), collectively “Defendants.” Carter raised a variety of claims

premised on his allegations that Agent Ludwick wrongly inserted himself into the

civil case and intentionally, but wrongly, targeted Carter as his mother’s killer.

Initially, Carter pursued: five claims arising directly under the Iowa Constitution

under Godfrey v. State, 898 N.W.2d 844 (Iowa 2017), overruled by Burnett v.

Smith, ___ N.W.2d ___ (Iowa 2023), commonly referred to as “Godfrey claims”; six

common law tort claims; and a request for attorney fees.

       Rather than answer, Defendants moved to dismiss the petition based on

sovereign immunity, qualified and absolute judicial process immunity, and

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Carter voluntarily

dismissed three of the common law tort claims1 before the district court ruled on

the motion, leaving nine claims for the court to decide. The district court granted

Defendants’ motion to dismiss on June 3, 2021, disposing of all of Carter’s

remaining claims. It ruled in Defendants’ favor on all grounds asserted in their

       1Carter dropped his claims for false arrest, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution

against Agent Ludwick in his individual capacity.
                                         3

motion, finding that sovereign, qualified, and absolute immunities applied, and

that certain counts failed to state a cognizable claim.

      Carter appealed the district court’s ruling only as to three of his Godfrey

claims: count I (relying on the search and seizure provision in article I, section 8

of the Iowa Constitution), count III (relying on the due process provision in article

I, section 9 of the Iowa Constitution), and count IV (also relying on article I,

section 9 of the Iowa Constitution). As explained in Burnett v. Smith, ___

N.W.2d ___, we overruled Godfrey as demonstrably erroneous and unworkable

in practice. Carter’s constitutional tort claims therefore cannot proceed. We

affirm the district court’s dismissal of these claims.

      AFFIRMED.

      Mansfield and May, JJ., take no part.

      This opinion shall not be published.