Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Michelle MacDonald USCA Grazzini-Rucki v David L Knutson Appeal 14-2569

Michelle MacDonald USCA Grazzini-Rucki v David L Knutson Appeal 14-2569

Ratings: (0)|Views: 63 |Likes:
Published by ghostgrip
Michelle MacDonald USCA Grazzini-Rucki v David L Knutson Appeal 14-2569
Michelle MacDonald USCA Grazzini-Rucki v David L Knutson Appeal 14-2569

More info:

Published by: ghostgrip on Jul 16, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/28/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Appellate Case: 14-2569 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/16/2014 Entry ID: 4176093
NITED STATES CORT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHT CIRCIT APPEAL FILE NO: 142569
andra Grazzini-ucki  individually and on behalf of her children, NJ, VR, GJ, NG and GP, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
vs.
David L Knutson, an  individual, John Does 1-20 and Mary Does 1-20,
Dendants Plaintis,
 APPELLANT' DEIGNATION OF RECORD AND TATEMENT OF IUE TOBE  PREENTD ON  APPEAL
Cot File No.
0: 13-CV-024 77
Sanda GazziniRcki, individally and on behalf of he childen, NJR, SVR, GJR, NGR, AND GPR, on behalf of theselves and all othes siilaly sitated, "GazziniRcki o Appellant), psant to Appeal Bieng Schedle Ode, dated Jly 2, 2014, heeby sbits thei stateent of isses to be pesented on appeal and its designation of ites to be inclded in the ecod on appeal.
I TATEMENT OF IUE PEENTED ON APPEAL
 
Appellate Case: 14-2569 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/16/2014 Entry ID: 4176093
IUE 1
he distict cot ling that Jdicial Inities applies to the Plaintifs Civil Rights Violation Action was clea eo
IUE 2
.
he Distict Cot Faile to explicitly le on the bden of the Dendant as to invoking Jdicial Inity was clea eo Apposite Cases:
Schottel

Young
6 F3d 30, 33   ci.192). Apposite Cases: Jstice Doglas dissenting pinion in
Pearson

Ray
36 .S. 54, 559 Doglas' Dissenting)
Dawkins

LordPaulet

R. 5
Q.
B 94, 110 C J Cockb, dissenting). [Withot an explicit bden of poof, the ling is abitay and discetiona, an cially nconstittional. he  jdicial inity was allowed to be invoked withot any de pocess eqieents, inclding an explicit evidentiay standad] Apposite Cases: "he poponent of a clai to absolte inity beas the bden of establishing the jstication  sch inity.
Antoine
v.
Byers
&
Anderson Inc.
50 .S 429, 432 1993);
 see aso Buckley

Fitzsimmons,
509 .S. 259, 269 1993) he poponent of a clai to absolte inity beas the bden of establishing the jstication  sch inity
IUE 3
he Distict Cot ade a clea eo by saily disissing Paintifs Civil Rights Coplaint aditionally, the eqieents  elief nde[§] 193 have been aticlated as: 1) a violation of ights potected by the Constittion o
2
 
Appellate Case: 14-2569 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/16/2014 Entry ID: 4176093
ceated by deal tatte 2) poxately caed 3) by condct of a peon 4) actng nde colo of tate law. Appote Cae: See
Crumpton
v
Gates
94 F.2d 141, 1420 9th C 1991). Co have eqed plant to "plead that 1) the dendant actng nde colo of tate law 2) depved plant of ght eced by the Conttton o fedeal tatte.
Gibson

United tates
1F2d1334133 9th C. 196);
 see also Long

Coun of Los ngeles
442 F.3d 11, 115 9th C 2006);
W Techs Inc
v
Miller
19 F.3d 36, 32 9th C. 1999) enbanc);
Ortez

Washington Coun Or
 F3d 04 10 9th C. 1996 Appote Cae: In
Harper
v
Merckle
63 F.2d 4 5th C.),
cert denied
454 .S. 16, 102 S. Ct 93 [946] 0
L.
d 2d 5 191), 14 the cot ced on the llowng cto n detenng whethe o not that a  jdge condct conttted a jdcal act: 1) the pece act coplaned of ...  a noal jdcal fncton; 2) the event nvolved occed n the jdge chabe; 3) the contovey centeed aond a cae then pendng bee the jdge; and  4) the conontaton aoe dectly and edately ot of a vt to the jdge n h ofcal capacty. Whethe o not Dendant Davd ton acton on Septebe  2012 llowed by a ctody tal on Septebe 11 2013 jdcal act.?
IUE 4
he dtct co cotted gncant pocedal eo and dened M. GanRck pocedal de poce when t led
3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->