Scott R. Luke v. State of Iowa Department of Health and Human Services, Families First Counseling, Samantha Weigman, Katrina Guhl (f/k/a Miller), Jennifer White, Cerro Gordo County Attorney's Office, and David Grooters

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: August 6, 2025
• Docket: 24-1421
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-1421 Filed August 6, 2025

SCOTT R. LUKE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF IOWA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, FAMILIES FIRST COUNSELING, SAMANTHA WEIGMAN, KATRINA GUHL (f/k/a MILLER), JENNIFER WHITE, CERRO GORDO COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, and DAVID GROOTERS, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Gregg R.

Rosenbladt (dismissal of § 1983 claim and reconsideration of initial dismissal

order) and Colleen Weiland (dismissal of other claims), Judges.

A plaintiff appeals the district court’s dismissals of his claims. AFFIRMED.

Scott Luke, Ames, self-represented appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Michelle R. Becker, Assistant Attorney

General, for State appellees.

Bruce L. Gettman Jr. and Luke M. Zahari of Redfern, Mason, Larsen, &

Moore, P.L.C., Cedar Falls, for appellees Families First Counseling and Katrina

Guhl.

Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and

Langholz, JJ. 2

LANGHOLZ, Judge.

In February 2021, an infant tragically died in his mother’s care from severe

malnourishment. At the time, the child was the subject of a child-in-need-of-

assistance case and had been removed from his father’s custody. See generally

Iowa Code §§ 232.2(6), 232.95 (2020). A little over two years after the child’s

death, the father—Scott Luke—sued the State, two Iowa Department of Health and

Human Services employees, the Cerro Gordo County Attorney, the child’s

guardian ad litem, the private counseling service Families First Counseling, and a

Families First employee—persons and entities he alleged were connected with the

child-in-need-of-assistance case. Luke repleaded several times, ultimately

bringing wrongful-death, loss-of-consortium, and federal civil rights claims.

Across several rulings, the district court dismissed all of Luke’s claims.

Relevant here, the court found: (1) Luke was not the administrator of the son’s

estate and thus could not bring a wrongful-death claim, (2) he failed to exhaust his

tort claim against the State, (3) the statute of limitations barred his loss-of-

consortium and § 1983 claims against all defendants, and (4) Families First and

its employee were not state actors and thus could not be sued under § 1983. He

now appeals those dismissals, seeking to reinstate his claims. Because the district

court did not err, we affirm its dismissal of all Luke’s claims.

A Preliminary Concern. Luke is self-represented, and we will consider his

arguments as we understand them and to the extent they are preserved for appeal.

But we also note that Luke’s brief is riddled with citations to nonexistent Iowa

cases. We share the appellees’ concerns that Luke possibly misused an artificial

intelligence tool when preparing his brief, resulting in pages of discussion based 3

on fake cases. And we stress that self-represented litigants and attorneys alike

have a duty to independently verify the authenticity and veracity of all sources and

assertions when relying on artificial intelligence tools to prepare trial or appellate

court filings.

Wrongful Death. Turning to the merits, Luke first argues that his wrongful-

death claim was timely and that dismissing the claim improperly elevates

procedure over merits. Yet the district court correctly applied Iowa law when it

dismissed this claim for lack of standing. “The right to recover wrongful-death

damages in Iowa is vested exclusively in the estate representative, and the

recovery belongs to the estate.” Roth v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan

Soc’y, 886 N.W.2d 601, 608 (Iowa 2016). Because Luke is not the administrator

of the child’s estate, he cannot pursue a wrongful-death claim, regardless of

whether it was timely filed.

Loss of Consortium. Luke next argues that his loss-of-consortium claim

was timely—despite filing his petition one day beyond the two-year limitations

period—because filing tort claims under the Iowa Tort Claims Act should toll the

limitations period for all defendants. To support his argument, Luke points us to

Iowa Code section 614.10 (2023). But that section is a savings statute, which

allows plaintiffs who initially filed a timely suit to refile within six months of a

dismissal without breaching the limitations period. See Iowa Code § 614.10. The

provision does not toll the limitations period for plaintiffs who have administratively

pending tort claims. See generally Iowa Code ch. 669. And while Luke indeed

repleaded many times, his initial petition was filed more than two years from the 4

child’s death. See id. § 614.1(2). So the savings statute cannot salvage his loss-

of-consortium claim against Families First or its employee.

Nor was Luke’s loss-of-consortium claim against the State properly filed.

To sue the State for tort damages, parties must first exhaust their administrative

remedies by filing a claim with the director of the department of management. See

id. §§ 669.3, 669.5. A party may only sue the State in district court if “the attorney

general has made final disposition of the claim” or six months has passed since

submission. Id. § 669.5(1). Luke sued the State in March 2023, just under a month

after he filed tort claims with the director. So the district court correctly dismissed

this claim against the State.

Section 1983. Finally, Luke renews his argument that the savings statute

should salvage his untimely § 1983 claims against the defendants. For the

reasons already stated, no provision tolled the two-year limitations period to bring

a § 1983 claim. Thus, even if Families First and its employee were acting under

color of state law as required for claims under § 1983, the claims were properly

dismissed as untimely against all the defendants.

AFFIRMED.