Sei sulla pagina 1di 5


David James Carlson



Case No. 16cv765SRNBRT


County of Ramsey,
State of Minnesota
County of Anoka,
State of Minnesota
Independent School District #624 (ISD #624)
White Bear Lake, Minnesota

Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1) and 4(a), notice is hereby given that
David J. Carlson, Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter, appeals to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Plaintiff appeals from the MEMORANDUM AND ORDER of the
District Court of Minnesota entered on 15 June, 2016 by Hon. Judge Susan R. Nelson.
The Order states that U.S. District Court of Minnesota does not have subject matter
jurisdiction. I disagree, and am appealing that decision. U.S. federal courts have jurisdiction
over constitutional deprivations; civil rights violations; and violations of U.S. laws and tort laws;
all of which are detailed in depth in Carlson v. County of Ramsey et al.

As a disabled veteran and Pro Se litigant, Plaintiff has been defending himself
simultaneously in two cases in the State of Minnesota in equal--yet separate jurisdictions
(Second Judicial District Ramsey County, Tenth Judicial District Anoka County), which cases
form the basis for Plaintiffs constitutional and civil rights claims against the three (3) defendants
herein. Plaintiff requests federal relief and also cites the federal question as the basis for
This case presents the important issue of whether the attempted seizure by the state court
of any and all of Plaintiffs protected Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) records, including
Plaintiffs entire U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) service records, which records span from 2001 to
present day (15 June, 2016), is appropriate, justified, or legal. This attempt is a clear and
egregious violation of 38 U.S.C. 7332. Judge Nelson further erred in not giving the serious
issue of veterans federally protected medical records proper or due consideration. Her cavalier
dismissal of this case as merely presenting state issues puts in grave jeopardy the right of
confidential protections inherent in these records, and also jeopardizes private family
relationships in the case of tens of millions of American veterans. Leaving this issue unsettled
dangerously puts the relationships of veterans and their families hanging in the balance, which
cannot possibly be remedied by a local state judge in the State of Minnesota.
For veterans, disabled veterans, or any other person(s) who experience any kind of
traumatic event, this destruction of a sacred and vested interest in protecting privacy and
confidentiality for those receiving services at the VA or any other institutions is at stake. This
destruction will have the undesirable effect of discouraging veterans, or those suffering from
trauma, from seeking much needed care. Our society has an interest in veterans, or those

suffering from traumatic experiences, seeking and receiving the medical care they need without
the threat of destruction to their families--possibly even decades after receiving treatment.
Judge Nelson erred in emphasizing the principle of abstention over the far more
important principle of a citizens right to seek impartial adjudication in the federal court system
of state court decisions that violate Constitutional or civil rights. Judge Nelson erred in so
readily dismissing important constitutional claims that involve critical civil rights protections
that the federal government is sworn to protect and uphold, in favor of lesser important principles
of abstention. Had the federal courts not exercised jurisdiction in desegregation cases, AfricanAmerican citizens would still be drinking from separate faucets, attending different schools, and
riding in the back of buses in certain states in our nation.
Similarly, Judge Nelson too easily dismisses the rights of another protected group-disabled veterans, who encompass all colors, genders, religions, and creeds--who ought to be
afforded the same protections as other protected classes in American society, in accord with the
principle of equal justice under law. Claims of deprivations of civil rights and constitutional
violations, when in conflict, must command the full authority of the federal court system to
uphold these rights guaranteed not just to Plaintiff, but to all citizens of the United States under
our Constitution. A citizen has a right to be heard by an impartial arbiter on such matters.
Plaintiff has been denied that opportunity every step of the way in this process, despite making
repeated and numerous requests for an emergency hearing. He has never been given the
opportunity to be heard orally regarding these vital claims, which he brought in good faith before
the United States District Court, District of Minnesota.

In addition, the order contains several errors of fact, as follows. First, Plaintiff has never
been diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder by the VA, as incorrectly stated in Judge
Nelsons order. Secondly, Plaintiff never assured Judge Millenacker he would turn over
medical records, but rather stated plainly he was unable to make that decision at that time, and
asked to seek the advice of counsel and the VA regarding the matter.
Wherefore, Plaintiff petitions the appellate court to reverse Judge Nelsons Order in its
entirety. Further, Plaintiff specifically requests he be given a hearing at the District Court level
before an Article III Judge. Additionally, Plaintiff specifically requests every form of relief he
requested in his complaint Carlson v County of Ramsey et al.
Furthermore, Plaintiff is not persuaded that the judges in this matter can act as have
impartial decision-makers in this matter. Therefore, Plaintiff believes that the interests of justice
demand that the venue of this matter be moved to another jurisdiction within the U.S. 8th Federal
Circuit, outside of the State of Minnesota. Or, alternatively, if that remedy is unavailable,
Plaintiff respectfully requests a different Magistrate Judge and Article III Judge be assigned to
hear this matter within the venue of District of Minnesota Court.
Lastly, Plaintiff claims U.S. District Court has jurisdiction, and must adjudicate claims
pursuant to Article III 2, which extends federal jurisdiction to cases arising under the U.S.
Constitution. Additionally, Plaintiff brings this suit pursuant to Title 42 U.S. Code 1983 for
violations of certain protections guaranteed to him by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh,
Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the federal Constitution.
Plaintiff additionally claims federal jurisdiction pursuant to Title 28 U.S. Code 1331,
covering claims arising from violations of federal constitutional rights guaranteed to plaintiff in
the aforementioned (1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, & 14th) amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Signed this

15th day of June, 2016

Signature of Party