1. Upon finding that an inmate has violated an institutional rule, has failed to complete
a sex offender or domestic abuse treatment program as specified in section 903A.2, or has
had an action or appeal dismissed under section 610A.2, the independent administrative law
judge may order forfeiture of any or all earned time accrued and not forfeited up to the date
of the violation by the inmate and may order forfeiture of any or all earned time accrued and
not forfeited up to the date the action or appeal is dismissed, unless the court entered such an
order under section 610A.3. The independent administrative law judge has discretion within
the guidelines established pursuant to section 903A.4, to determine the amount of time that
should be forfeited based upon the severity of the violation. Prior violations by the inmate
may be considered by the administrative law judge in the decision.
2. The orders of the administrative law judge are subject to appeal to the superintendent
or warden of the institution, or the superintendent’s or warden’s designee, who may either
affirm, modify, remand for correction of procedural errors, or reverse an order. However,
sanctions shall not be increased on appeal.
3. The director of the Iowa department of corrections or the director’s designee may
restore all or any portion of previously forfeited earned time for acts of heroism or for
meritorious actions. The director shall establish by rule the requirements as to which
activities may warrant the restoration of earned time and the amount of earned time to be
restored.
4. The inmate disciplinary procedure, including but not limited to the method of awarding
or forfeiting time pursuant to this chapter, is not a contested case subject to chapter 17A.
83 Acts, ch 147, §4, 14, 15; 84 Acts, ch 1244, §3; 88 Acts, ch 1109, §32; 95 Acts, ch 167, §5;
2000 Acts, ch 1173, §5, 10; 2003 Acts, 1st Ex, ch 2, §53, 209; 2018 Acts, ch 1172, §66
Referred to in §822.2, 903A.1, 903A.2, 903A.4
\n
Notes of Decisions
State of Iowa v. Iowa Dist. Court for Jones Cnty., 902 N.W.2d 811 (Iowa 2017).
· cites it 9× “2(2) says that “[e]arned time accrued pursuant to this section may be forfeited in the manner prescribed in section 903A.3.” Iowa Code § 903A.2(2). The implication is that section 903A.”
Aschan v. State, 446 N.W.2d 791 (Iowa 1989).
· cites it 26× “” Iowa Code § 903A.3(2) (1987). We think the second prong — the statute must expressly or impliedly require the remedy to be exhausted — is also satisfied.”
Sanford v. Manternach, 601 N.W.2d 360 (Iowa 1999).
· cites it 8× “Iowa Code § 903A.3(1). We initially note that even under Iowa’s scheme, an inmate’s good-conduct time is protected from forfeiture in the absence of the inmate’s misconduct.”
Backstrom v. Iowa Dist. Court for Jones Cnty., 508 N.W.2d 705 (Iowa 1993).
· cites it 8× “It is provided in Iowa Code section 903A.3(1) (1991) that good time forfeiture may only occur "[u]pon finding that an inmate has violated an institutional rule.”
Bugely v. State, 464 N.W.2d 878 (Iowa 1991).
· cites it 14× “2(6) (1987) as requiring a postcon-viction relief applicant to exhaust both levels of examination in Iowa Code section 903A.3(2) before such applicant seeks relief in the district court.”
State of Iowa v. Allen Robert Allensworth, 823 N.W.2d 411 (Iowa 2012).
· cites it 6× “Earned time accrued pursuant to this section may be forfeited in the manner prescribed in section 903A.3. 3. Time sened in a jail or another facility prior to actual placement in an institution under the control of the de *415 partment of corrections and credited against the…”
James v. State, 479 N.W.2d 287 (Iowa 1991).
· cites it 6× “See Iowa Code § 903A.3(2). Both appeals were unsuccessful.”
Harpster v. State, 569 N.W.2d 594 (Iowa 1997).
· cites it 7× “Harpster’s argument fails because the decision by ALJ Rankin to revoke 2000 days of good conduct time accumulated by Harp-ster was within the discretion granted by the Iowa Code and DOC regulations allowing the forfeiture of “any and all” good conduct time earned by the inmate.”
Williams v. State, 421 N.W.2d 890 (Iowa 1988).
· cites it 4× “This is because the committee members were not “independent hearing officers” as required by the following statutory provision: The director of the Iowa department of corrections shall appoint independent hearing officers whose duties shall include but not be limited to review,…”
Jones v. State, 545 N.W.2d 313 (Iowa 1996).
· cites it 4× “4 authorizes the department of corrections to develop rules to implement section 903A.3. The department of corrections has not issued rules that prescribe specific sanctions for violations of specific institutional rules.”
— Iowa Code § 903A.3(1) — 9 cases
Sanford v. Manternach, 601 N.W.2d 360 (Iowa 1999).
“Iowa Code § 903A.3(1). We initially note that even under Iowa’s scheme, an inmate’s good-conduct time is protected from forfeiture in the absence of the inmate’s misconduct.”
Backstrom v. Iowa Dist. Court for Jones Cnty., 508 N.W.2d 705 (Iowa 1993).
“It is provided in Iowa Code section 903A.3(1) (1991) that good time forfeiture may only occur "[u]pon finding that an inmate has violated an institutional rule.”
Williams v. State, 421 N.W.2d 890 (Iowa 1988).
“This is because the committee members were not “independent hearing officers” as required by the following statutory provision: The director of the Iowa department of corrections shall appoint independent hearing officers whose duties shall include but not be limited to review,…”
— Iowa Code § 903A.3(2) — 17 cases
Aschan v. State, 446 N.W.2d 791 (Iowa 1989).
“” Iowa Code § 903A.3(2) (1987). We think the second prong — the statute must expressly or impliedly require the remedy to be exhausted — is also satisfied.”
Bugely v. State, 464 N.W.2d 878 (Iowa 1991).
“2(6) (1987) as requiring a postcon-viction relief applicant to exhaust both levels of examination in Iowa Code section 903A.3(2) before such applicant seeks relief in the district court.”
James v. State, 479 N.W.2d 287 (Iowa 1991).
“See Iowa Code § 903A.3(2). Both appeals were unsuccessful.”
— Iowa Code § 903A.3(4) — 3 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.