Buy This Entire Record For
Neuman v. Callahan
Court of Appeals of Iowa
July 24, 2019
JAMES WILLIAM NEUMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
NATHAN CALLAHAN, DEB DOE, EMILY ZERKEL, BLACK HAWK COUNTY ATTORNEYS OFFICE, JOEL A. DALRYMPLE, JEREMY LEE WESTENDORF, MICHELLE MARIE WAGNER, STATE OF IOWA, KEVIN R. CMELIK, CINDY DOE, GRANT VEERDER, STEPH DOE, KELLYANN M. LEKAR, JOHN MILLER, BLACK HAWK COUNTY CLERKS OFFICE, JANE DOE, TOM LITTLE, FRANK MAGSAMEN, CRAIG WHITE, RITA SCHMIDT, BLACK HAWK COUNTY, IOWA, JOSEPH MOOTHART, BRIAN JOHN WILLIAMS, BLACK HAWK COUNTY COURTHOUSE, LINDA LAYLIN, IOWA ATTORNEY GENERAL, and THOMAS FERGUSON, Defendants-Appellees.
from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Rustin T.
Neuman appeals the dismissal of his lawsuit.
William Neuman, Waterloo, self-represented appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Jeffrey C. Peterzalek and
Caroline Barrett, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee
T. McCoy and Dustin Zesche of Swisher & Cohrt, P.L.C.,
Waterloo, for Black Hawk County appellees.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.
legal odyssey began with James Neuman's 2014 Operating
While Intoxicated (OWI) conviction. Dissatisfied with the way
the Black Hawk County Clerk's office staff handled
administration of his fine, Neuman filed a civil lawsuit. His
205-page petition asserted a conspiracy by a variety of
state, county, and judicial actors. The district court
succinctly summarized Neuman's lawsuit:
He has brought suit against Black Hawk County, the Black Hawk
County Courthouse, Black Hawk County Attorney's Office,
against specific attorneys in the Black Hawk County
Attorney's Office, against the individual board of
supervisors, against the Black Hawk County Auditor. Neuman
has also brought suit against the Iowa Attorney General's
Office, judges who have presided in Black Hawk County,
specific individuals at the Iowa Attorney General's
Office, against the Black Hawk County Clerk's Office, and
certain employees of the Black Hawk County Clerk's
Office. Neuman's case arises as a result of his concern
that administration of fines in Black Hawk County is being
done improperly and illegally. Neuman was convicted of
operating while intoxicated in Black Hawk County OWCR196436
on October 17, 2014. Pursuant to the Judgment and Sentence, a
fine of $1250 plus 35% surcharge, a DARE charge of $10, and a
Law Enforcement Initiative surcharge of $125 was imposed. It
provided that half of the $1250 fine and applicable surcharge
would be waived when the defendant presents to the clerk of
court a temporary restricted license and a copy of the
certificate of installation of ignition interlock device if
required by the DOT. Neuman contends there is a conspiracy
between defendants in this case to overcharge him and other
criminal defendants for fines they have to pay. He contends
that the clerk's office falsifies payment records and
conspired to keep defendants on probation.
asserted a plethora of claims under a multitude of theories.
The district court granted defendants' motions to
dismiss. Neuman appeals.
first thing that strikes us is the length of Neuman's
briefs. He certified that his 111-page opening brief is 14,
000 words-the limit imposed by Iowa Rule of Appellate
Procedure 6.903(1)(g)(1) (2019). The actual word count is 17,
844, not including the cover page, table of contents, table
of authorities, statement of the issues, certificates,
signature blocks, and page numbers. The brief is over length.
Neuman certified that his 54-page reply brief is 10, 000
words. Although it contains 9361 words in actuality, the
reply brief is also over length as it exceeds the 7000 word
limit-one-half the word limit length for an opening brief.
See Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(1)(g)(1) ("A reply
brief shall contain no more than half of the type volume
specified for a required brief."). Neuman did not
request or receive permission to file over length briefs.
next thing that strikes us is the number of rules violations
that riddle Neuman's briefs. Examples follow.
• Factual statements are unsupported by references to
the record or the appendix. See Iowa Rs. App.
• The briefs contain no meaningful statements about how
Neuman preserved issues for appellate review and there are no
references to the places in the record where he raised or the
district court decided ...