John Anderson v. University of Iowa and Board of Regents for the State of Iowa
This text of John Anderson v. University of Iowa and Board of Regents for the State of Iowa (John Anderson v. University of Iowa and Board of Regents for the State of Iowa) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 24-0477 Filed May 7, 2025
JOHN ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
UNIVERSITY OF IOWA and BOARD OF REGENTS FOR THE STATE OF IOWA, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark Fowler, Judge.
A former university student appeals the district court’s order dismissing his
previously adjudicated discrimination claims. AFFIRMED.
John W. Anderson, Tama, self-represented appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Patrick C. Valencia, Deputy Solicitor
General, for appellees.
Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and
Buller, JJ. 2
BADDING, Judge.
John Anderson—a former university student—appeals the dismissal of his
pro se petition asserting three counts of “discrimination” against the University of
Iowa and the Iowa Board of Regents. This is the fifth time Anderson has sued the
same defendants for the same alleged mistreatment. Among other procedural
deficiencies, the district court found that Anderson’s claims were barred by the
doctrine of res judicata.1
We have previously denied Anderson’s attempt to relitigate these claims,
which have already been reduced to final judgment. See Anderson v. Univ. of
Iowa, No. 18-0801, 2019 WL 719044, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2019).
Anderson now argues that res judicata cannot attach because his due process
rights were violated in prior proceedings and because a former attorney provided
him ineffective representation. Reviewing for correction of errors at law, Petro v.
Palmer Coll. of Chiropractic, 945 N.W.2d 763, 769 (Iowa 2020), we find no merit
to these arguments. We therefore affirm the order of the district court without
further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(d), (e).
AFFIRMED.
1 The district court also concluded that dismissal was warranted based on Anderson’s failure to prosecute, failure to state a claim, and failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
John Anderson v. University of Iowa and Board of Regents for the State of Iowa, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-anderson-v-university-of-iowa-and-board-of-regents-for-the-state-of-iowactapp-2025.