Michael Lee Gordon v. State of Iowa, LaDonna Wilcox, Randy Coffman and John Martinez
This text of Michael Lee Gordon v. State of Iowa, LaDonna Wilcox, Randy Coffman and John Martinez (Michael Lee Gordon v. State of Iowa, LaDonna Wilcox, Randy Coffman and John Martinez) 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. 23-1134 Filed July 23, 2025
MICHAEL LEE GORDON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA, LADONNA WILCOX, RANDY COFFMAN and JOHN MARTINEZ, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee (North) County, Clinton R.
Boddicker, Judge.
The inmate-plaintiff appeals the dismissal of his civil lawsuit for failure to
pay the filing fee. AFFIRMED.
Michael Gordon, Fort Madison, self-represented appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and H. Loraine Wallace (until withdrawal)
and Clinton L. Spurrier, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellees.
Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and
Potterfield, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2025). 2
POTTERFIELD, Senior Judge.
Inmate Michael Gordon filed a handwritten “jury trial demand,” claiming
certain items of his personal property were improperly confiscated by prison
officials and asking for the return of his property or “reimbursement” of $50,174.99.
After some additional filings, the district court denied Gordon’s motion to proceed
in forma pauperis, ruling:
This is an action at law for money damages. [Gordon] is an incarcerated person. He asks to proceed in forma pauperis. This request is DENIED. Iowa Code [c]hapter 610A [(2022)] applies to civil litigation by inmates. In evaluating the request to proceed in forma pauperis the court considered the entire record and FINDS that plaintiff shall pay a minimum of 20% of the required filing fee before the court will take any further action on his case. [Iowa Code § 610A.1(1)]. Once [Gordon] pays the 20%, he must then pay 10% each month toward the outstanding filing fee and costs. If [Gordon] wishes to proceed on this basis, he shall notify the court and we will require withdrawals from his inmate account balance. If [Gordon] does not act to pay the required fee, the court may dismiss this action.
Gordon filed a response that he wanted to proceed as outlined by the court.
On November 14, 2022, the district court ordered Gordon “shall immediately
pay $39.00, which is 20% of the required $195.00 filing fee” and then “$19.50 every
30 days thereafter until the filing fees and court costs are paid in full.” See Iowa
Code § 610A.1(1)(a). The court ordered the Iowa Department of Corrections to
“withdraw funds from [Gordon’s] inmate account balance” on that schedule. See
id. § 610A.1(1)(b).
Gordon did not make any of the required payments. After the court filed
multiple orders, including one warning Gordon his case would be dismissed if he
failed to make the necessary payments, it dismissed Gordon’s case pursuant to 3
section 610A.1(1)(d) on May 12, 2023. Gordon appeals the dismissal of his civil
suit.
On appeal, Gordon does not dispute “section 610A.1(1) requires all inmates
under the control of the department of corrections to ‘pay in full all fees and costs
associated with’ the inmate’s civil action or appeal.” Goodrich v. State, 608 N.W.2d
774, 777 (Iowa 2000) (quoting Iowa Code § 610A.1(1)). Or that
section 610A.1(1)(d) allows the court to “dismiss any civil action . . . in which the
inmate or prisoner has previously failed to pay fees and costs in accordance with
this section.” And, in his filings in the district court, he conceded that he did not
make any of the required filing-fee payments before the May 12 dismissal.1 This
is sufficient to affirm the dismissal of Gordon’s civil suit.
AFFIRMED.
1 In his appellate briefs, Gordon argues his failure to pay was unintentional and
should be excused. He relies on facts outside the record to make this argument. See Peterzalek v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 7 N.W.3d 37, 41 (Iowa 2024) (“Generally speaking, our review is limited to the record made in ‘the district court case from which the appeal is taken.’” (quoting current Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.801)). We do not consider it.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Michael Lee Gordon v. State of Iowa, LaDonna Wilcox, Randy Coffman and John Martinez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-lee-gordon-v-state-of-iowa-ladonna-wilcox-randy-coffman-and-john-iowactapp-2025.