Full Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA _______________ No. 25-1227 Filed October 7, 2026 _______________ Michael Kelly, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Iowa Prison Industry; Anamosa State Penitentiary; Fort Dodge Correctional Facility-Secretary; Fort Dodge Correctional Facility; and Fort Dodge Correctional Facility-Regional Director, Defendants–Appellees. _______________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, The Honorable Samantha Gronewald, Judge. _______________ AFFIRMED _______________ Michael Kelly, Rockwell City, self-represented appellant. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, Patrick C. Valencia, Deputy Solicitor General, Halle Kissell (until withdrawal), Assistant Solicitor General, and Ryan Pell, Assistant Attorney General, attorneys for appellees. _______________ Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ. Opinion by Ahlers, P.J. 1 AHLERS, Presiding Judge. Michael Kelly seeks judicial review under Iowa Code chapter 17A (2024) of a grievance complaint he filed with the Iowa Department of Corrections (IDOC). The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss based on Kelly’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Kelly appeals. “When a party fails to exhaust all of its required administrative remedies, the court has no authority to hear the case, and if a party properly raises the challenge, the court must dismiss the case.” Ghost Player, L.L.C. v. State, 860 N.W.2d 323, 326 (Iowa 2015). “We review the authority of the district court to hear a case for correction of errors at law.” Id. Before seeking judicial review, typically a party must exhaust all available administrative remedies. Iowa Code § 17A.19(1); Sierra Club Iowa Chapter v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 832 N.W.2d 636, 642 (Iowa 2013). “Two conditions must be met before we apply the doctrine [of exhaustion of administrative remedies]: an adequate administrative remedy must exist for the claimed wrong, and the governing statutes must expressly or impliedly require the remedy to be exhausted before allowing judicial review.” Riley v. Boxa, 542 N.W.2d 519, 521 (Iowa 1996). These two conditions are met here, as there is an administrative process by which Kelly could bring his claim for relief and section 17A.19 requires exhaustion of that administrative process before Kelly may obtain relief on judicial review. See id. at 521–23. The parties agree as to the administrative process adopted by the IDOC that incarcerated individuals, like Kelly, must utilize. It is as follows: An inmate must first seek to resolve the problem informally. If this fails, the inmate may file an Offender Grievance Complaint on a prescribed form, stating the reason for the grievance and the action requested. A 2 grievance officer investigates the grievance and either replies to the inmate in writing or refers the matter to a grievance committee. An inmate may appeal the Grievance Response by the grievance officer or grievance committee to the warden or superintendent, who must respond within fifteen days and state reasons for his decision. If the inmate remains dissatisfied, he may appeal to the Grievance Appeal Coordinator, who must ensure that there is a response to the appeal from the appropriate source within thirty days. The entire process “will not exceed 103 days unless extensions have been given.” King v. Iowa Dep’t of Corr., 598 F.3d 1051, 1052 (8th Cir. 2010). Here, Kelly’s complaint centers around his claim that a correctional officer exposed him “to unsanitized toilet paper by removing toilet paper from offender trash located in offender restroom,” which Kelly used to blow his nose and when using the restroom. Kelly sought disciplinary action against the correctional officer and monetary damages. Documentation shows that he brought up his concerns informally first, satisfying the first of the four required steps in the administrative process. See id. And the court file contains a copy of Kelly’s formal grievance complaint that he subsequently filed, satisfying the second step. See id. The court file also contains the grievance response denying his claim and informing him of his requirement to file an appeal with the “warden/superintendent or designee” within fifteen days of the grievance response. The problem arises at the third step. This step provides: “An inmate may appeal the Grievance Response by the grievance officer or grievance committee to the warden or superintendent, who must respond within fifteen days and state reasons for his decision.” Id. Kelly claims he did this but never received a response, so he went ahead with the fourth step and appealed to the regional director, serving as the grievance appeal coordinator. In response, an IDOC official contacted Kelly to inform him that the deputy 3 warden never received his appeal and extended the deadline for him to submit his appeal to the deputy warden. In other words, the IDOC official told Kelly he needed to first comply with step three and gave him the opportunity to do so. But Kelly never did. So his claim was denied for failure to follow the proper procedure, and Kelly filed a petition for judicial review. Kelly now argues that he should not be required to submit his appeal to the deputy warden after being prompted to do so to exhaust his administrative remedies. In doing so, he is steadfast that he acted in good faith and submitted his appeal to the deputy warden already. He argues he should not have to submit it again given his good-faith efforts. But the documentation before us belies his assertion. He was informed that the deputy warden never received his appeal. The IDOC official gave him an opportunity to remedy that. He simply chose not to do so. And submission of his appeal was necessary to satisfy step three. See id. So Kelly failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Cf. Tracy v. Coover, No. 09-0931, 2011 WL 227629, at *7–8 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2011) (recognizing a complainant failed to exhaust administrative remedies when she did not comply with the four-step process and rejecting her attempt to excuse her failure to exhaust in part because no one steered her away from the administrative grievance process or presented confusing or conflicting instructions about the necessary process). The district court correctly concluded it had to dismiss Kelly’s petition for judicial review based on his failure to exhaust administrative remedies. AFFIRMED. 4