No. 24-5701

Harold David Yaritz v. Minnesota Department of Corrections, et al.

Lower Court: Eighth Circuit
Docketed: 2024-10-04
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: complaint-amendment constitutional-rights document-interpretation judicial-discretion legal-procedure procedural-due-process
Key Terms:
SecondAmendment FirstAmendment DueProcess JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2024-11-22
Question Presented (from Petition)

1) How can a legal system in "the Land of.the Free" side by superficial reasoning
with officials who abuse their power of authority to repress others of their
Constitutional rights instead of following their ethical obligation to apply
true justice? Is this not what "an attack on democarcy" is all about?

2) How can the District Court claim that the document titled "2nd Amendment of
Complaint" (instead of "Second Amended Complaint") supersedes the :original
complaint when it is per dictionary a CORRECTION (or clarification), and not
a change in the complaint in itself which Rule ;8 only addresses?

3) How can the District Court and the US Appellate Court dismiss a serious com
plaint by instead of looking at the serious issues brought forward in the
original complaint only considering the "2nd Amendment of Complaint" which
a) is obvious to any layman only an intended clarification of Defendants, and
b) which the District Court never accepted in the first place as it did not
add the State of Minnesota as a defendant as requested in the "2nd Amendment
of Complaint"?

4) How can the District Court ignore Petitioners.-original complaint when
a) it advised Petitioner that an "AMENDED COMPLAINT" would supersede the
original complaint, whereof
b) Petitioner drafted a "2ND AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT" to only clarify defendants
and their role named in the original complaint?

5) How can a legal institution designed to uphold the law. allow, and even parti
cipate in derogatory measures (going negative when the opponent cannot be beat
by standing out has become in American politics quite the norm) to defame the
complaint about a serious violation of Constitutional rights by discrediting
the Petitioner by his conviction that has nothing to do- with this complaint?

6) How can any legal authority (here Attoney General Corinne Wright; specifically
one ofsthevsix institutions of the DOC namely Faribault; AND the District Court)
treat specific convicts differently even when there is no provision in lav?/ -•
policy to do so, which-is a trend in a. Nation which sexual negativity (driven
by the religious misinformation on Adam & Eve.)' increases not only sexual crimes
in the first place?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the District Court and Appellate Court improperly dismissed a complaint by disregarding substantive constitutional rights and procedural due process in favor of technical document interpretation

Docket Entries

2024-11-25
Petition DENIED.
2024-11-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/22/2024.
2024-10-18
Waiver of right of respondent Minnesota Department of Corrections, et al. to respond filed.
2024-09-11
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 4, 2024)

Attorneys

Harold David Yaritz
Harold David Yaritz — Petitioner
Minnesota Department of Corrections, et al.
Corinna WrightMinnesota Attorney General's Office, Respondent