MacKenzie Rumsey and Bela Animal Legal Defense and Rescue v. City of Des Moines, Iowa, 15-1948

The City of Des Moines impounded Rumsey’s pit bull, Malice, declared it a "dangerous animal," and ordered euthanasia.
Rumsey sought immediate return of the dog by filing an application under Iowa Code chapters 809 and 809A.
District court held chapters 809 and 809A did not apply and denied return; Rumsey appealed.
Key statutory questions: whether those forfeiture/seized-property statutes apply when a municipality quarantines/impounds an animal and intends euthanasia.
Rumsey also argued preclusion based on another judge’s prior ruling and moved for the trial judge’s recusal for alleged bias; both arguments were rejected by the court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of Iowa Code ch. 809A (forfeiture)	Chapter 809A applies because animal control is law enforcement and the city’s intent to euthanize is effectively forfeiture	809A applies to criminal forfeiture prosecuted by a prosecuting attorney; no prosecution or criminal charge here	809A does not apply; no prosecuting attorney or criminal forfeiture process was involved
Applicability of Iowa Code ch. 809 (seized property return)	Malice is "seizable property" and must be returned under section 809.5 if not required as evidence	The city did not seize Malice under section 809.1(1)(c); 809.5’s return conditions are not met by municipal impound/quarantine	809 does not require return; statutory disposition provisions don’t cover this municipal animal impoundment
Issue preclusion / law of the case based on a different judge’s ruling	Prior judge’s decision in a different dog-impound case precludes relitigation and supports return	Prior decision is not identical controlling precedent for this different owner/dog; doctrines not triggered	Preclusion / law-of-the-case doctrines do not apply; issues not identical nor previously decided on appeal
Recusal of the trial judge	Judge should recuse for bias based on prior involvement/knowledge in related proceedings	No extrajudicial bias; prior rulings/knowledge do not create disqualifying bias	Denial of recusal was not an abuse of discretion; no disqualifying bias shown

State v. Adams, 554 N.W.2d 686 (Iowa 1996) (standard of review for statutory interpretation)
Emp’rs Mut. Cas. Co. v. Van Haaften, 815 N.W.2d 17 (Iowa 2012) (requirements for issue preclusion)
Clarke Cty. Reservoir Comm’n v. Robins, 862 N.W.2d 166 (Iowa 2015) (scope of law-of-the-case doctrine)
State v. Millsap, 704 N.W.2d 426 (Iowa 2005) (recusal issues reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Smith, 242 N.W.2d 320 (Iowa 1976) (prior involvement does not necessarily create disqualifying bias)
Harrington v. Univ. of N. Iowa, 726 N.W.2d 363 (Iowa 2007) (arguments unsupported by authority may be waived)