from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County,
Gregory W. Steensland, Judge.
inmate appeals from the district court ruling denying his
motion to quash the Iowa Department of Correction's
collection of restitution from his prison account.
Ray Hiatt, Fort Dodge, pro se appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and William A. Hill, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Greer,
Hiatt is an inmate in the custody of the Iowa Department of
Corrections (IDOC). As part of his sentence, he was ordered to
2018, Hiatt filed a motion to quash, challenging IDOC's
collection of restitution from his prison account. He
maintained IDOC was seizing funds from his prison account
that came from outside sources and had not provided Hiatt a
predeprivation hearing before doing so.
an unreported hearing, the district court denied Hiatt's
motion, ruling Hiatt "does not have a protected property
interest in restitution funds deducted from his prison
allowances." See State v. Love, 589 N.W.2d 49,
52 (Iowa 1998).
filed a motion to reconsider, asserting that his complaint
was not with restitution taken from his prison allowances but
rather with the restitution taken from the outside funds that
were deposited into his prison account. In the same motion,
Hiatt also asked the judge to recuse himself. The district
court denied the motion in whole, simply stating,
"Motion for reconsideration and demand for recusal are
appealed. The State requested a limited remand for the
purpose of adding evidence to the record, noting "the
record does not contain the restitution predeprivation notice
completed by" IDOC. Hiatt resisted, and our supreme
court denied the State's motion and transferred the case
"[A]n inmate has a protected property interest in his
prison account and cannot be deprived of his private funds
[i.e. money gifts from outside sources] without due
process." Id. at 50 (summarizing the holding of
Walters v. Grossheim, 525 N.W.2d 830, 831-32 (Iowa
1994)). Because of this due process right, "prison
officials must . . . notify the prisoner of the assessment
against outside sources, permit time for objection, and
consider the objections in forming the new restitution
plan." Id. at 51. "[A]ny funds seized
without a predeprivation hearing must be returned."
Id. (citing Walters v. Grossheim, 554
N.W.2d 530, 531 (Iowa 1996)).
on the exhibits attached to Hiatt's motion, it appears
IDOC routinely deducted 20% of the funds deposited into his
prison account from outside sources for restitution purposes.
But we have nothing in the record to establish whether Haitt
was given notice of the deduction or the opportunity to
object to it before it began. The only thing we know with
certainty is that Hiatt has a constitutional right to notice
before being deprived of his private property.
Walters, 525 N.W.2d at 831-32. Because we cannot say
on this record whether that occurred, we remand to the
district court for further proceedings.
AND REMANDED FOR ...