Opinion
No. 2-147 / 01-0871.
Filed March 13, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Page County, JAMES M. RICHARDSON, Judge.
The appellants appeal from the dismissal of their mandamus action. AFFIRMED.
Douglas E. Kurtz, pro se, Clarinda.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and H. Loraine Wallace, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by MAHAN, P.J., and MILLER and HECHT, JJ.
The appellants appeal from the dismissal of their mandamus action. We affirm.
The appellants are prisoners in a state correctional facility. On February 21, 2001 they filed a mandamus action pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 661 contending the application of Senate File 2276 through prison disciplinary actions violated the separation of powers and ex post facto provisions of the United States Constitution. Additionally, they claimed that disciplinary sanctions imposed against two of the plaintiffs violated their rights of free speech, association, and petition.
Senate File 2276 converted "good conduct" time to "earned time" and imposed new requirements for the accrual of "earned time."
The appellees filed a motion to dismiss the mandamus action contending that the exclusive remedy in this situation was chapter 822, covering postconviction procedure. The district court agreed and dismissed the mandamus action. The prisoners appeal.
It is important to note that this appeal does not reach the merits of the appellants' underlying claims. The district court never entered a ruling on those claims. Instead, this appeal only concerns the issue of whether the district court erred in dismissing the petition because it was improperly filed as a mandamus action.
Principles governing mandamus are well established. It is a drastic remedy to be applied only in exceptional circumstances. It is not to be used to establish rights but to enforce rights that have already been established. The writ can be used to compel a tribunal to act but cannot control its discretion. If there is a plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law, mandamus does not lie. When such a remedy is available through certiorari or appeal, mandamus should not be ordered. The other available remedy, however, must be competent to afford relief on the very subject matter in question, and be equally convenient, beneficial and effectual.
Hewitt v. Ryan, 356 N.W.2d 230, 233 (Iowa 1984) (citations omitted); s ee also House v. Moulder, 469 N.W.2d 265, 266 (Iowa Ct. App. 1991); Iowa Code § 661.7.
Chapter 822 provides appellants a "plain, speedy and adequate" remedy to address their claims. The district court in a postconviction proceeding has jurisdiction over the constitutional issues raised. Davis v. State, 345 N.W.2d 97, 99 (Iowa 1984); s ee, e.g., Bradley v. State, 473 N.W.2d 224 (Iowa Ct. App. 1991) ( Miranda issues addressed in prison discipline postconviction case).
We conclude the district court properly dismissed appellants' mandamus action. We accordingly affirm.
AFFIRMED.