Opinion
23-0349
02-21-2024
MICHAEL ALEXANDER LAJEUNESSE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. IOWA BOARD OF MEDICINE, Respondent-Appellee.
Michael A. Lajeunesse, Anamosa, self-represented appellant. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, Katie Frank Carl, Assistant Attorney General, and Tessa M. Register, Assistant Solicitor General, for appellee.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Sarah Crane, Judge.
A petitioner appeals the dismissal of his mandamus action and denial of permissive joinder.
Michael A. Lajeunesse, Anamosa, self-represented appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, Katie Frank Carl, Assistant Attorney General, and Tessa M. Register, Assistant Solicitor General, for appellee.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ. Langholz, J., takes no part.
BADDING, JUDGE.
Michael Lajeunesse was convicted of attempted murder and willful injury causing serious injury "after he beat and strangled a woman . . . with whom he was having a romantic relationship." State v. Lajeunesse, No. 17-0507, 2018 WL 1099024, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2018). Those convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. Id. at *6. Since then, Lajeunesse has been engaged in a pro se legal battle from prison against the medical examiner who testified at his trial, Dr. Gregory Schmunk. The latest salvo in that battle is a mandamus petition that Lajeunesse filed in May 2022 against the Iowa Board of Medicine.
Lajeunesse later challenged the district court's order on restitution, which was affirmed. State v. Lajeunesse, No. 18-0263, 2018 WL 3912180, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2018). The denial of Lajeunesse's first and second applications for postconviction relief raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were also affirmed. See generally Lajeunesse v. State, No. 21-0817, 2022 WL 1654831 (Iowa Ct. App. May 25, 2022); Lajeunesse v. State, No. 19-1715, 2022 WL 469408 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2022).
See Lajeunesse v. Iowa Bd. of Med., No. 21-1071,2022 WL 1100910, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 13, 2022); Lajeunesse v. Iowa Bd. of Med., No. 20-1295, 2021 WL 5918403, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2021). Having previously denied Lajeunesse's motions requesting "judicial notice of his entire appellate record," we cite these cases as background only.
In the petition, Lajeunesse stated: "I will need the [victim's] medical records to be reviewed by the Board for their use in other legal proceedings against Dr. Gregory Schmunk for his expert opinionated testimony during my trial." The Board moved to dismiss the petition for failure to state a claim upon which any relief could be granted. Following an unreported hearing, the district court entered an order dismissing the action. The court found judicial review was the exclusive means for Lajeunesse to challenge action or inaction of the Board, and the Board's decision here-"to not pursue an investigation or disciplinary proceeding"-was not subject to judicial review.
Lajeunesse appeals, claiming the district court "put the cart before the horse" when it ruled that he is attempting to use mandamus as a vehicle to discipline Dr. Schmunk. He says the purpose of his petition was clearly stated as seeking to compel the Board to review the medical records that were allegedly suppressed during his criminal trial. We review this claim for correction of errors at law, accepting as true "the petition's well-pleaded factual allegations, but not its legal conclusions." Nahas v. Polk Cnty., 991 N.W.2d 770, 775 (Iowa 2023) (citation omitted).
"The action of mandamus is one brought to obtain an order commanding an inferior tribunal, board, corporation, or person to do or not to do an act, the performance or omission of which the law enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station." Iowa Code § 661.1 (2022). In other words, "the purpose of mandamus is 'to enforce an established right and to enforce a corresponding duty imposed by law.'" Concerned Citizens for Grand Ave. Dev. v. City of W. Des Moines, No. 22-1342, 2023 WL 4530253, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. July 13, 2023) (quoting Stith v. Civ. Serv. Comm'n, 159 N.W.2d 806, 808 (Iowa 1968)).
The Board is an agency as defined in Iowa Code section 17A.2(1). As an agency, the judicial-review procedures of chapter 17A are the exclusive means to challenge its actions. See Iowa Code § 17A.19; Salsbury Labs. v. Iowa Dep't of Env't Quality, 276 N.W.2d 830, 835 (Iowa 1979) ("A person or party aggrieved or adversely affected by agency action must utilize the provisions of section 17A.19 in seeking judicial review of that action."). There is no exception to the exclusivity mandate "for common-law writs such as certiorari, declaratory judgment, or injunction." Salsbury Labs., 276 N.W.2d at 835. Nor is there an exception for mandamus. See Basik Five Trust v. Culver, No. 06-0165, 2007 WL 108898, at *1, 3 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2007) (affirming dismissal of claim for declaratory relief and writ of mandamus because review of secretary of state's actions as an agency fell under chapter 17A, which was sole remedy available).
Section 17A.19 provides: "Except as expressly provided otherwise by another statute referring to this chapter by name, the judicial review provisions of this chapter shall be the exclusive means by which a person or party who is aggrieved or adversely affected by agency action may seek judicial review of such agency action." Lajeunesse does not argue another statute excepts mandamus from this exclusivity provision.
Because Lajeunesse is trying to compel agency action, or in other words challenge agency inaction, the judicial-review procedures of chapter 17A are the exclusive means to do so. But Lajeunesse runs into another barrier there, as he seems to recognize. Iowa Code section 272C.3(1)(d) provides that "[n]otwithstanding the provisions of chapter 17A, a determination by a licensing board that an investigation is not warranted or that an investigation should be closed without initiating a disciplinary proceeding is not subject to judicial review pursuant to section 17A.19." See Lewis Cent. Educ. Ass'n, 625 N.W.2d at 691 (stating the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act "recognizes the legislature may, by statute, make agency action unreviewable"). While Lajenuesse says that he is not pursuing discipline of Dr. Schmunk, he is trying to start some sort of investigation into the victim's medical records and, by extension, Dr. Schmunk's testimony about those documents at his trial.
Agency action includes both action and inaction. Lewis Cent. Educ. Ass'n v. Iowa Bd. of Educ. Exam'rs, 625 N.W.2d 687, 691-92 (Iowa 2001).
Lajeunesse seems to argue that, because of this lack of reviewability under chapter 17A, mandamus is authorized since he has suffered "irreparable harm," and the administrative remedy is inadequate. But these concepts only weigh on whether exhaustion of administrative remedies is required under chapter 17A before proceeding to the district court. See, e.g., Walsh v. Wahlert, 913 N.W.2d 517, 522 (Iowa 2018); City of Iowa City v. Hagen Elecs., Inc., 545 N.W.2d 530, 534 (Iowa 1996); Salsbury Labs., 276 N.W.2d at 837. They do not govern whether relief against an agency may be pursued outside of chapter 17A.
For these reasons, we agree with the district court that dismissal of Lajeunesse's mandamus action was proper for failure to state a claim. See Rees v. City of Shenandoah, 682 N.W.2d 77, 79 (Iowa 2004) ("A motion to dismiss is properly granted 'only when there exists no conceivable set of facts entitling the non-moving party to relief.'" (citation omitted)).
This leaves us with Lajeunesse's challenge to the district court's denial of his motion for permissive joinder of his postconviction-relief attorney, Erin Carr. Lajeunesse's motion alleged that Carr told him "the 'suppressed' medical records were both inadmissible during his trial and during his post-conviction action" and advised him "to stop pursuing Dr. Schmunk's involvement as an Expert Witness during his trial." In its ruling dismissing the mandamus action, the district court denied joinder because Lajeunesse failed to identify "a basis in which Carr would be appropriately joined to this case as a party."
Lajeunesse also moved to join the State of Iowa in the action. But the court did not rule on that motion, and Lajeunesse did not file a motion requesting a ruling. So we confine our review to the joinder motion for Carr. See Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002) ("It is a fundamental doctrine of appellate review that issues must ordinarily be both raised and decided by the district court before we will decide them on appeal.").
On appeal, Lajeunesse seems to argue joinder was proper under section 661.12, which authorizes joinder of a mandamus action "with a cause of action for such an injunction as may be obtained by ordinary proceedings, or with the cause of actions specified in this chapter." He did not raise this claim in the district court, and it is therefore not preserved. See Meier, 641 N.W.2d at 537. In any event, section 661.12 does not apply because it governs joinder of actions, not permissive joinder of parties under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.233, as Lajeunesse sought here. Lajeunesse does not otherwise argue, at least so far as we can discern, why joinder was proper under rule 1.233. And it's clear that Lajeunesse's complaints against attorney Carr fall under postconviction-relief chapter 822, so mandamus is unavailable for those complaints. See Comly v. Lund, No. 01-0871, 2002 WL 575798, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2002) (affirming dismissal of mandamus action where chapter 822 provided a sufficient remedy).
"The law does not judge by two standards, one for lawyers and another for lay persons. Rather, all are expected to act with equal competence. If lay persons choose to proceed pro se, they do so at their own risk." Kubik v. Burk, 540 N.W.2d 60, 63 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (internal citations omitted).
We affirm dismissal of Lajeunesse's mandamus petition and the denial of his motion for permissive joinder.
We also deny the motion Lajenuesse filed on February 14, 2024, "asking permission to amend his final brief to include three specific opinions filed by this Court within the last quarter."
AFFIRMED.