No. 25-420

Joseph Daryll Rued, et al. v. Jaykumar Jayswal, et al.

Lower Court: Eighth Circuit
Docketed: 2025-10-08
Status: Rehearing
Type: Paid
Response WaivedRelisted (3)
Tags: case-law constitutional-interpretation federal-rights fifth-amendment habeas-corpus judicial-doctrine
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess FifthAmendment HabeasCorpus JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2026-02-20 (distributed 3 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Do Fifth Amendment requirements apply to actions determining facts or applying judicial doctrines and caselaw affecting protected rights?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

Petitioners ’ actions seeking enforcement of federal rights and law were dismissed based upon demonstrable fraud which was affirmed on appeal. The Questions Presented Are: Do Fifth Amendment requirements apply to actions determining facts or applying judicial doctrines and caselaw affecting protected rights? Does a petition for writ of habeas corpus lie for physical confinement and/or restraint unshared by the general public imposed by a state judgement in violation of the laws of the United States? Do jurisdictional requirements under Art. Ill proscribe fraud demonstrable on the face of the record determinative to actions by federal judges? Can Rooker-Feldman apply to claims unreached by any completed state proceedings or through privity? Do First and Fifth Amendment requirements protect the right to petition the government from inhibition or deprivation based upon fraud? Does the Seventh Amendment protect claims from judicial interference related to jury demanded determinations that include questions of fact? Are 1996 additions to §1983 an exercise of Congressional authority that is not provisioned? Should writs of prohibition have issued against judicial actions failing to comply with genuine case and controversy requirements under Art. III?

Docket Entries

2026-01-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/20/2026.
2026-01-12
Application (25A571) denied by the Court.
2025-12-22
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2025-12-08
Petition DENIED.
2025-12-03
Application (25A571) referred to the Court.
2025-12-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/9/2026.
2025-11-19
Application (25A571) refiled and submitted to Justice Alito.
2025-11-18
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/5/2025.
2025-11-17
Application (25A571) denied by Justice Kavanaugh.
2025-11-07
Application (25A571) for an injunction, submitted to Justice Kavanaugh.
2025-11-07
Waiver of right of respondent Federal Respondents to respond filed.
2025-11-07
Waiver of Federal Respondents of right to respond submitted.
2025-10-25
Waiver of right of respondents Lesley Karnes, Julie Swanson, Suzanne Arnston, Scott County Human Services, Ryan Kuffel and Jamie Pearson to respond filed.
2025-10-24
Waiver of right of respondent State Respondents to respond filed.
2025-10-24
Waiver of right of respondent Dr. Anne Gearity to respond filed.
2025-10-24
Waiver of State Respondents of right to respond submitted.
2025-07-18
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 7, 2025)

Attorneys

Dr. Anne Gearity
Andrea Pavelka HoverstenGeraghty O'Loughlin & Kenney, P.A., Respondent
Andrea Pavelka HoverstenGeraghty O'Loughlin & Kenney, P.A., Respondent
Andrea Pavelka HoverstenGeraghty O'Loughlin & Kenney, P.A., Respondent
Federal Respondents
D. John SauerSolicitor General, Respondent
D. John SauerSolicitor General, Respondent
D. John SauerSolicitor General, Respondent
Joseph Daryll Rued, et al.
Joseph Daryll Rued — Petitioner
Joseph Daryll Rued — Petitioner
Joseph Daryll Rued — Petitioner
Lesley Karnes, Julie Swanson, Suzanne Arnston, Scott County Human Services, Ryan Kuffel and Jamie Pearson
Susan M. TindalIverson Reuvers, Respondent
Susan M. TindalIverson Reuvers, Respondent
Susan M. TindalIverson Reuvers, Respondent
State Respondents
Joseph David WeinerOffice of the Minnesota Attorney General, Respondent
Joseph David WeinerOffice of the Minnesota Attorney General, Respondent
Joseph David WeinerOffice of the Minnesota Attorney General, Respondent