Appellate Case: 14-2569 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/16/2014 Entry ID: 4176093

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE EIGHT CIRCUIT
APPEAL FILE NO.: 14-2569
Sandra Grazzini-Rucki
individually and on behalf
of her children, NJR, SVR,
GJR, NGR and GPR, on
behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated.
vs.
David L. Knutson, an
individual, John Does 1-20
and Mary Does 1-20,
Defendants
Plaintifs,
APPELLANTS'
DESIGNATION OF
RECORD AND
STATEMENT OF
ISSUES TOBE
PRESENTED ON
APPEAL
Court File No.
0: 13-CV-024 77
Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, individually and on behalf of her children,
NJR, SVR, GJR, NGR, AND GPR, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, ("Grazzini-Rucki" or "Appellant"), pursuant to Appeal
Briefing Schedule Order, dated July 2, 2014, hereby submits their statement
of issues to be presented on appeal and its designation of items to be
included in the record on appeal.
I. STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED ON APPEAL
1
Appellate Case: 14-2569 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/16/2014 Entry ID: 4176093
ISSUE 1. The district court ruling that Judicial Immunities applies to the
Plaintiffs Civil Rights Violation Action was clear etTor.
ISSUE 2 .. The District Court Failure to explicitly rule on the burden of the
Defndant as to invoking Judicial Immunity was clear error.
Apposite Cases: Schottel v. Young , 687 F3rd 370, 373 (8t
h
cir.1982).
Apposite Cases: Justice Douglas' dissenting opinion in Pearson v. Ray 386
U.S. 547, 559 (Douglas' Dissenting). Dawkins v. LordPaulet, L. R. 5 Q. B.
94, 110 (C. J. Cockbmn, dissenting). [Without an explicit burden of proof,
the iuling is arbitrary and discretionaty, an facially unconstitutional. The
judicial immunity was allowed to be invoked without any due process
requirements, including an explicit evidentiary standard]
Apposite Cases: "The proponent of a claim to absolute immunity
bears the burden of establishing the justifcation fr such immunity."
Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429, 432 (1993); see also
Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 269 (1993). The proponent of a claim
to absolute immunity bears the burden of establishing the justification for
such immunity."
ISSUE 3. The District Court made a clear error by summarily dismissing
Plaintiffs Civil Rights Complaint.
"Traditionally, the requirements fr relief under[] 1983 have been
articulated as: (1) a violation of rights protected by the Constitution or
2
Appellate Case: 14-2569 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/16/2014 Entry ID: 4176093
created by federal statute, (2) proximately caused (3) by conduct of a
'person' (4) acting under color of state law."
Apposite Cases: See Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th
Cir. 1991). Comis have required plaintiffs to "plead that (1) the defendants
acting under color of state law (2) deprived plaintifs of rights secured by the
Constitution or federal statutes." Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334,
1338 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Long v. Count of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d
1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); WM Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 197 F.3d 367, 372
(9th Cir. 1999) (enbanc); Ortez v. Washington Count, Or., 88 F.3d 804, 810
(9th Cir. 1996
Apposite Cases: In Harper v. Merckle, 638 F.2d 848 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied, 454 U.S. 816, 102 S. Ct. 93, [946] 70 L. Ed. 2d 85 (1981), 14 the
court focused on the following fctors in determining whether or not that a
judge's conduct constituted a judicial act:
(1) the precise act complained of . . . is a normal judicial function; (2) the
events involved occutTed in the judge's chambers; (3) the controversy
centered around a case then pending before the judge; and ( 4) the
confrontation arose directly and immediately out of a visit to the judge in his
official capacity.
Whether or not Defndant David Kutson's actions on September 7, 2012,
fllowed by a custody trial on September 11, 2013 "judicial acts."?
ISSUE 4: The district couti committed significant procedural error and
denied Ms. Grazzini-Rucki procedural due process when it failed
3
Appellate Case: 14-2569 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/16/2014 Entry ID: 4176093
to allow Ms. Grazzini-Rucki to have an evidentiary hearing as to
usurping of cases, jurisdiction, and "judicial acts"
ISSUE 5: Wether the State's Att01ney General is required to
represent/defend an individual who is employee of the County
sued individually, and alleged to have committed Civil Rights
violations? If so, is the State's Attorney General required to
investigate whether or not civil rights violations did in fact occur?
If the State's attorney general determines that civil rights violations
occmTed, is the State's attorney General then required to
investigate whether immunities apply to the acts complained of?
a. The District Court committed procedural enor and denied
Plaintiffs due process when it relied on the Attorney General's
interpretation and application of Minn. Stat. 8.01 "The Defendant
is a state employee and the attorney general may provide
representation of such employee when so requested by the
appropriate individual or authorit"; Minn. Stat. 8.01, et seq.
"directing the attorney general to appear on behalf of the state
interest." ; Minn. Stat. 3.736 subd 9 indicating that the state shall
defend employees for claims arising fom the scope of
employment; Minn. Stat. 3.732 sub 1,2 and 43.02 sub. 10,21, 25
which is defining state employees to include district comi judges.
b. The District Cami committed procedural e1Tor and denied
Plaintiffs due process by allowing the State's attorney general
defend to file a motion to summarily dismiss the Plaintiff's claim
for civil rights violations based on judicial immunity, which did
not apply to the specifc facts of the violation set forth in Ms.
Grazzini-Rucki's civil rights case.
ISSUE 6: The District Court committed procedural e1Tor and denied
Plaintiffs due process when it granted the Defendant David Knutson's
motion to dismiss without responding to the Plaintiffs' authorized letters of
Februaiy 18, 2014 and April 3, 2014 requesting to supplement the record
4
Appellate Case: 14-2569 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/16/2014 Entry ID: 4176093
with ongoing evidence of violations of civil rights by individual defendant.
ISSUE 7. The Domestic Relations Exception/ounger Abstention does not
permit the District Comt to dismiss a claim for relief pursuant to
28 USC 1983? The Domestic Relations/ounger Abstention
doctrne does not penit the District Court to dismiss a claim for
relief fr civil rights violations where the Plaintif is NOT
challenging the state comt decision but is making a claim for civil
rights violation and challenging the jurisdiction and acts, in terms
of procedures leading up to the decision(s).
Apposite Cases. See Barber v. Barber 62 US 582 582 (1859);
Ankenbrandt v. Richards 504 US 689 (1992); Rooker v. Fidelit Trust Co.
263 U.S. 413 (1982); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman 460
us 462 (1983).
ISSUE 8. The District Court misapplied the law as Judges are not absolutely
Immune, nor is immunity permission to violate an individual's
civil rights, or for ethical abuse.
Apposite Cases: Caperton v. Massey, 556 US 868 (2009)
a. The district court committed signi ficant procedural en-or and denied
Ms. Grazzini-Rucki due process by speciously claiming that "it is
well settled that judges of general jurisdiction are not liable in civil
actions based on claims of their misconduct dming the perfrmance
of their judicial fnctions." And assuming "all actions," without
identifying the speci fic and particularized fcts of the civil rights
violation complained of to wit: the act of September 7, 2012, and
September 12, 2013 were taken in its "judicial capacity" were acts to
which immunity attached.
b. The District Comt ened by making factual findings from those
contained in the court orders written by the Defendant David
Knutson himself; and made no factual fndings relating to the alleged
5
Appellate Case: 14-2569 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/16/2014 Entry ID: 4176093
civil rights violations of September 7, 2012 or September 12, 2013,
summarily dismissing Plaintiff's "damage" claims.
Apposite Cases: "A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own
jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to
act, and a court must have the authorit to decide that question in the frst
instance." Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 331 US 549
(1947).
Apposite Cases: It was the nature of the fnction perf01med, not the
identity of the actor who performed it, that informed our immunity analysis.
See Forester v. White 484 US 219 (1988) (Judge's decisions were not
judicial acts).
c. The district court committed significant procedural error and denied
Ms. Grazzini-Rucki procedural due process when it summarily
dismissed and failed to allow Ms. Grazzini-Rucki to submit
additional evidence, have her motion to compel, and have an
evidentiary hearing.
NOTE: The Courts Order of May 29, 2014, dismissed the Plaintiff's
complaint for civil rights and damages claims against Defndant David L.
Knutson filed on September 11, 2013, amended on November 11, 2013 on
the grounds of judicial immunity, and Judgment was entered on May 30,
2014. The dismissal effectively denied written requests objecting to the
Defndant, sued in his personal capacity, to be represented by the State's
att01ney general, and effectively denied the Plaintiffs' written request to
supplement the record; and effectively precluded Plaintiffs' scheduled
Motion to Compel with the asserting that the Attorney General, and the
6
Appellate Case: 14-2569 Page: 7 Date Filed: 07/16/2014 Entry ID: 4176093
Dakota County Attorey (third patty) did not respond to subpoenas fr
security video, which decisions are included in the notice of appeal.
Apposite Cases: See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 365 (1978)
(Stewati, J., dissenting) (citing Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335,
347, 348, 349, 351, 354, 357 (1872)); Brewer v.Blackwell, 692 F.2d 387,
396 (5th Cir. 1982); Harper v. Merckle, 638 F.2d 848, 859 (5thCir.), cert.
denied, 454 U.S. 816 (1981); Rheuark v. Shaw, 628 F.2d 297, 304-05 (5th
Cir.1980), cert denied, 450 U.S. 931 (1981 ); Lopez v. Vanderwater, 620
F.2d 1229, 1234-35 (7th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 449 U.S. 1028 (1980).
II. DESIGNATION OF ITEMS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE
RECORD
Appellant designates the following items fr inclusion in the record on
appeal. Such designation of pleadings and matters of records includes all
exhibits attached or refrred to in the pleadings or matters of records.
DOCKET DATE DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION
NO. ENTERED
Copy of the Federal District comi
Case No.: 0:13-CV-02477
l
09/11/2013 First Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis on Appeal; fled by Sandra Sue
Grazzini -Rucki
2
09/11/2013 Complaint for Civil Rights Violations,
42USC sec. and 42 USC sec.1983 against
Defendant, David L. Knutson, an individual,
et. al 1 Plaintiffs Sandra Grazzini-Rucki
7
Appellate Case: 14-2569 Page: 8 Date Filed: 07/16/2014 Entry ID: 4176093
1
09/27/2013

10/03/2013
.
10/07/2013
1
10/10/2013

10/17/2013
2
10/18/2013
l
10/28/2013
12 10/28/2013
u
10/28/2013
.
17 11/12/2013
individually and on behalf of her fve
children, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated
Third Application to Proceed In F01ma
Pauperis on Appeal filed by Sandra Sue
Grazzini-Rucki.
Order granting
1
Application on Proceeding
In Forma Pauperis on Appeal
Summons Issued as to David Knutson, John
Does 1-20 and Ma_ Does 1-20
Notice of Appearance by Att01ney General
Office, assistant attorney general Alethea M.
Huyser on behalf of Defendant David
Knutson, an individual
Notice of Objection to Appearance by
Attorney General fr Defendant David L.
Knutson, an individual, by Sandra Sue
Grazzini-Rucki
Letter to District Judge by Defendant David
Knutson written by atto1ney general
objecting to Notice of Objection to
Appearance
Motion to Dismiss/General by Defendant
David Knutson, individual, fled by att01ney
general claiming suit baned by judicial
immunities
Memorandum in Support re 10 motion to
Dismiss I General filed by David Knutson,
individual, claiming suit baned by judicial
immunity
Affidavit of Alethea M.Huyser in Support of
10 Motion to Dismiss/General filed by
David Knutson, individual
Amended Complaint fr Civil Rights
Violations, 42USC sec. and 42 USC
sec.1983 against Defndant, David L.
Knutson, an individual, et. al by Plaintiffs
Sandra Grazzini-Rucki individually and on
behalf of her five children, on behalf of
8
Appellate Case: 14-2569 Page: 9 Date Filed: 07/16/2014 Entry ID: 4176093
themselves and all others similarly situated,
to add civil rights violation by Defndant,
David L. Knutson, on 9/12/13 in canying on
and court trial and taking it under
advisement without Sandra Grazzini-Rucki,
and with her attorney under aJest afer
Coaint fled 9-11-13.
u
11/15/2013 Stipulation by David Knutson /Sandra Sue
Grazzini-Rucki related to deadlines fr
filing
20 11/18/2013 Order re U Stipulation related to deadlines
fr fling_
21 11/26/2013 Motion to Dismiss/General by David
Knutson (added Motion for Summaiy
Judgment)
23 11/26/2013 Memorandum in Support re 21 Motion to
Dismiss Rule 12/Motion fr Summary
Judgment fled by David Knutson,
individual
24 11/26/2013 Affdavit of Carolyn Renn in Support of 2
Motion to Dismiss/General filed by David
Knutson
25 11/26/2013 Second Affdavit of Alethea M. Huyser in
Suppmt of21 Motion to Dismiss /General
Filed by David Knutson
28 12/10/2013 Stipulation to extend Deadline by Sandra
Sue Grazzini-Rucki. Jointly signed by
David L. Knutson
29 12111/2013 Order re 28 Stipulation
30 12/12/2013 Memorandum in Opposition re 21 Motion to
Dismiss/General filed by Sandra Sue
Grazzini-Rucki and to deny motion to
dismiss
31 12/12/2013 Affidavit of Michelle L. MacDonald in
Opposition to 21 motion to Dismiss/General
file by Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki
32 12/12/2013 Affdavit of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki in
Opposition to 21 motion to Dismiss/General
filed by Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki
9
Appellate Case: 14-2569 Page: 10 Date Filed: 07/16/2014 Entry ID: 4176093
33 12/23/2013 Reply re 21 motion to Dismiss/General
Reply Memorandum in Supp01i of Motion
to Dismiss Amended Complaint and/or For
Summer Judgment of Defendant David L.
Knutson filed by_ David Knutson
35 02/10/2014 Supplemental Motion to Supplement fe
waiver for no prepayment of transcript costs
by Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki
36 02/10/2014 Affidavit of Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki in
Support of35 Supplemental Motion to
supplement fe waiver for no prepayment of
transcript costs filed by Sandra Sue
Grazzini-Rucki
37 02/13/2014 Order - Plaintiffs Motion To Supplement
Fee Waiver fr No Pre-Payment of
Transcript Costs 35 is Denied
38 02/18/2014 Letter to Magistrate Judge by Sandra Sue
Grazzini-Rucki to SlPlement record
39 03/14/2014 Letter to District Judge by David Knutson
41 03/20/2014 Notice ofFiliJ of Official Transcr
42 03/20/2014 Transcript of Motions hearing held on
January 10, 2014, before Judge Susan
Richard Nelson
43 04/03/2014 Letter to District Judge by Sandra Sue
Grazzini-Rucki to supplement record
44 05/29/2014 Memorandum Opinion and Order granting
Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
and/or fr Summary Judgment (granting the
motion to dismiss Plaintifs' damages
claims on the grounds of judicial immunity,
_ order filed May 29, 2014}.
45 05/30/2014 Judgment
46 06/05/2014 Copy of Letter to Ms. Alethea M. Huyser
from Michelle MacDonald (attaching
subpoenas and correspondence related to
Defndant and third paities withholding of
security video of courthouse and jail fr
dates of September 6,11,12,13, 16 related to
Plaintiffs motion to com_el evidence
10
Appellate Case: 14-2569 Page: 11 Date Filed: 07/16/2014 Entry ID: 4176093
withheld, motion scheduled June 23, 2014.
Dated: __ _, 2014

c D ONAD AWFIM, LLC
(

.
,
_
`
Michelle L. MacDonald, # 182370
1069 South Robert Street
West St. Paul, M 55118
Telephone: (651) 222-4400
Facsimile: (651) 222-1122
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
11