References to -- How to file in Federal Court

Discuss all aspects of suing CPS and its affiliates for the injustice done to your family.

Moderators: family_man, LindaJM

Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

References to -- How to file in Federal Court

Postby Marina » Mon Aug 14, 2006 10:37 am

How to file in Federal Court

Federal Courts home page

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Understanding the Federal Courts

page 18 - Civil cases

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Filing a Case

1. Q: How do I file a civil case? Is there a charge?
A civil action is commenced by the filing of a complaint. Parties instituting a civil action in a district court are required to pay a filing fee pursuant to Title 28, U.S. Code, Section 1914. The current fee is $250. Complaints may be accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning that the plaintiff is incapable of paying the filing fee. Proceedings in forma pauperis are governed by Title 28, U.S. Code, Section 1915.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts

interpret the law only through the resolution of actual legal disputes

Second, assuming there is an actual case or controversy, the plaintiff in a federal lawsuit also must have legal "standing" to ask the court for a decision. That means the plaintiff must have been aggrieved, or legally harmed in some way, by the defendant.

Third, the case must present a category of dispute that the law in question was designed to address, and it must be a complaint that the court has the power to remedy.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

How to draft a complaint in federal court – NY ... aftcmp.pdf

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

How to file your own action in Federal Court - NY ... ctions.pdf

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

federal rules of civil procedure

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
California ... affidavit'

Affidavit to Accompany
Motion for Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Links to examples of complaints on fightcps

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Working with the courts in child protection ... /index.cfm

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Federal Court Rules that Children May Sue Under ASFA ... cle_id=361

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Federal civil actions – for prisons – shows strategies for the poor.

Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Fed. child welfare laws

Postby Marina » Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:48 pm

Everything Federal: Laws & policies ( Child Welfare)

Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Code of Federal Regulations

Postby Marina » Mon Aug 14, 2006 5:17 pm

Electronic Code of Federal Regulations ... Findex.tpl

- - - - - - - - - -

Public Welfare ... tab_02.tpl

Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Civil action for deprivation of rights

Postby Marina » Mon Sep 04, 2006 9:10 am ... -000-.html

TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1983 Prev | Next

§ 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress...

Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Fri Sep 22, 2006 9:47 am

for those who find it necessary to litigate without or assist an attorney

Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Mueller v. Idaho

Postby Marina » Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:31 pm

Mueller v. Idaho

These 2 links compare the original complaint with how the court went through each part of the complaint to deal with the defendents' motions to dismiss. ... pinion.pdf

This deals with:

City Policy or Custom
Hospital Policy
Supervisory Liability
Acting Under Color of State Law
Sufficiency of the Allegations
Parental Rights of Custody
Unreasonable seizure of the child
Unreasonable seizure of the mother
Qualified Immunity
The Facial Challenge to a code
The “As-Applied” Challenge to a code
Respondeat Superior Liability
State Law Immunity
Improper Arrest or Imprisonment of the mother
Wrongful Interference with Custodial Rights
recognition of the tort. - to parental rights
Other Jurisdiction Support Recognition of the Tort.
Public Policy Supports Recognition of the Tort.
The Muellers Can State a Claim for Wrongful Interference.

An emergency room physician administered a spinal tap and antibiotics to
minor Taige Mueller without her parents’ consent. The Muellers bring this § 1983
action against the physician, the hospital, the City of Boise, Boise police officers,
and State social workers. For purposes of Defendants’ motions to dismiss, the
Court will assume the truth of the Muellers’ factual allegations as stated below.
On August 12, 2002, at approximately 10:15 p.m., Corissa Mueller brought
her five-week-old daughter, Taige Mueller, to St. Luke’s Emergency Room. Taige
had a temperature of 100.8 degrees Fahrenheit. The emergency room physician, Dr.
MacDonald, informed Corissa that it was hospital protocol to administer antibiotics
and a spinal tap to infants six weeks and younger who have a temperature of 100.4
degrees Fahrenheit or above. He told Corissa that there was a five percent risk of
meningitis associated with flu-like symptoms.
Corissa did not consent to hospital protocol. Corissa explained that she
preferred to wait for the results of the initial lab tests so she could discuss them with
her naturopath physician. Corissa explained her concerns, based upon her own
research, with injecting antibiotics into her five-week-old infant and performing a
spinal tap. When initial lab tests came back negative, at approximately 1:30 a.m. on
August 13, 2002, Corissa asked a nurse to begin the discharge procedure.
Unbeknwonst to Corissa, MacDonald had called the Idaho Department of
Health and Welfare (IDHW) for the purpose of enforcing hospital protocol.
Detective Rogers of the Boise Police Department then arrived at the hospital. He
advised Corissa that she was endangering her child by delaying the antibiotics and
spinal tap. Corissa attempted to explain her view regarding the conflicting dangers
involved and her reasons for avoiding the procedures.
At approximately 1:40 a.m., MacDonald indicated that he needed to take
Taige’s temperature. Corissa handed him the child for this purpose. MacDonald
subsequently kept the child and refused to return her.
Rogers advised Corissa that the child had been seized pursuant to Idaho Code
§ 16-1612. This statute provides that a peace officer may remove a child from
parental custody where prompt removal is necessary to prevent serious physical or
mental injury. Neither Rogers nor any other officer or social worker attempted to
use I.C. § 16-1616 which provides for judicial authorization of emergency medical
Corissa saw MacDonald take the child elsewhere in the hospital to perform
the medical procedures to which Corissa objected. Corissa was dragged protesting
down the hall by Officers Green and Snyder of the Boise Police Department. Corissa
demanded that Taige be returned to her. She also asked repeatedly to use the
hospital telephone to call her husband. City police officers refused her requests and
threatened her with handcuffs.
Around 2:30 a.m., April Auker, a social worker from IDHW, approached
Corissa with a Department Consent Form. Rogers told Auker to leave. Auker then
consulted with a fellow employee, Barbara Harmon, before signing two consent
forms in Linda Rodenbaugh’s name, also from IDHW. Following these consents,
MacDonald performed a spinal tap on Taige, which showed there was no sepsis or
Corissa was reunited with Taige at about 4:00 a.m., two hours and twenty
minutes after the child was seized. The next day, Kimberly Osadchuk from IDHW
attempted to obtain consent from Corissa for the procedures performed the night
before. Defendants Linda Rodenbaugh and Janet Fletcher are supervisors within
IDHW and authorized the acts of Defendants Auker, Harmon, and Osadchuk.
The Muellers bring § 1983 claims against all Defendants for conspiring to
deprive Eric and Corissa Mueller of their constitutionally protected parental rights of
custody. The Muellers also bring § 1983 claims against all Defendants for
conspiracy to deprive Corissa and Taige of their Fourth Amendment rights to be free
from unreasonable seizures. The Muellers demand an injunction preventing the City
and IDHW from removing children from their parents in the absence of imminent
harm and without a court order. The Muellers also demand that Idaho Code § 16-
1612 be declared unconstitutional on its face and as applied. The Muellers seek to
represent a class pursuant to Rule 23 in regard to their claims for prospective relief.
The Muellers bring state law tort claims against St. Luke’s and MacDonald for
battery, improper arrest, and wrongful interference with custodial rights.

- - - - - - - - -

Mueller v. Idaho information page

September 29, 2004
CIR challenges Idaho child protection
Claims agency actions violate Constitution

Rights vs. risks ...
By Carissa Wolf
The Idaho Statesman, February 25, 2003

August 10, 2005
Family rights case moves forward
Judge denies hospital, police motions

April 18, 2006
Idaho family rights case moves forward
Judge denies Hospital motion to dismiss --
allows Mueller Family to add claims

Officer's tapes ... -tapes.pdf

Return to “Sue Them!”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests