Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Richard Rynn, Next Friend and Parent of M. R., a Minor, Petitioner v. David Lujan, Individually and in His Official Capacity as the Director of the Arizona Department of Child Safety, et al.

FILED

H11jiitell 1

• t

b S. la

No. 22A1024

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

RICHARD RYNN, next friend and parent of MR, a

minor,

Petitioner

V.

GEORGE A Mckay, in his official capacity as

Director of the Arizona Department of Child Safety,

and personally, et al

Respondents

On petition for a Writ of Certiorari to

The United States Court of Appeals

For the Ninth Circuit

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Richard Rynn

1299 E. Marlin Drive

Chandler, AZ 85286

(520)510-6370

richardrynn@yahoo.com

Petitioner/Plaintiff Pro Se

1

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Does court err omitting facts, dismissing

Defendants that kidnapped child, interfered in

legal custody, interfered in parental rights, with

actions under color of law, in breach of legal signed

contract, without judicial authorization and

without cause?

2. Does court err in dismissing complaint without

ruling on factual subject matter of constitutional

rights violations of case?

PARTIES TO PROCEEDING

State of Arizona, Department of Child Safety, Gregory

Mckay, Desert Vista Behavioral Health Center, UHS,

Quail Run Behavioral Health, La Frontera Empact

3

RELATED CASES

Rynn V DCS Arizona Supreme court case No. CV- 230156-PR

Rynn V Daniel Washburn Arizona Supreme court case

No. CV- 23-0157-PR

In Dependency of MR. Division Two

case No. 2 CA-JV 2023-0098

Rynn v First Transit U.S. Supr. Ct. No. 22A1001

Table of Contents

Questions Presented-

3

Parties to Proceeding

3

Related Cases...........

4

Table of Contents......

4

Table of Authorities-

5

Statutes

6

Petition For Writ Of Certiorari

7

Opinions Below...............

7

Jurisdiction......................

7

Constitutional Provisions

8

Statement Of The Case -

8

4

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

Petition required to resolve constitutional rights

violations, interference in parental rights, custody

rights, correct factual flaws in judgment’s that affect

case. Clearly judgements tainted by fraud, referring to

April 28, 2017, ex parte judgments, that are not legally

enforceable, April 28, 2017, ex parte judgements not

disclosed to Rynn until year 2022 in violation of due

process.....................................

17

Conclusion........................

22

APPENDIX......................

23

Table of Authorities

Cases

Ingraham v. Wright. 430 U.S. 651, 97 S.Ct.

1401(1977.......................................................

8

Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997)...... 11

Thornton v. City_of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158,

1163-64 (9th Cir. 2005).........................................

14

Shoshone-Barnnock Tribes v. Idaho Fish & Game

Comm'n, 42 F.3d 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 1994)...........

14

Rizzo v. Good, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976)

14

Commonwealth v Arias 2017 Mass. App. Lexis 148

(Nov. 9, 2017) ........................................................... 16

5

Monell v. Department of Social Services

436 U.S. 658 (1978)..................................

22

Beltran v. Santa Clara County. 514 F.3d 906

(9th Cir. 2008)...................................................

16

Hardwick v. County Of Orange, No. 15-55563

9th Cir., 2017......................................................

16

Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019

20

Pure Oil Co. v. City of Northlake, 10 Ill.2d

241, 245, 140 N.E. 2d 289 (1956)................

Statutes

20

28 U.S. Code § 1257

8

section 242 title 18

8

AZ § 1-602

13

1983 title 42

8, 13

Fed. Rule 12 (a)

15

AZ Rule 65

8

AZ Rule 60

15, 18

Brady Rule

15

Fed. Rule 103, (a)(b)(2)(c)(e)

15

Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(6)

21

6

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Appellant Rynn respectfully petitions for a writ of

certiorari to review judgement of court of Appeals for

the Ninth circuit and United States District court for

the District of Arizona.

Opinions Below

Decisions of Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Denial of rehearing, March. 1, 2023

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Memorandum, Affirmed Nov.23, 2022

District Court Filed July. 9, 2021

Order Docket No. 96

District Court Filed August. 18, 2021

Order, Docket No. 101

District Court Order Filed August 16, 2018

Order Docket No. 59

Jurisdiction

Appellants Rehearing was denied to the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals court on March. 1, 2023. Appellants

were granted a sixty-day extension within the ninety

days and timely filed this petition within the extended

7

sixty-day time limit. This court has jurisdiction per 28

U.S. Code § 1257.

Constitutional Provisions Involved

Rynn rights violated under Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendments of Constitution. Constitutional rights

violated under section 242 title 18. Violation of

section 1983 title 42 state is person subject to liability.

Due Process Violations, Parental rights violations

Interference of legal custody, violations of AZ Rule 65.

Per Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the

United States Constitution. No person shall be

deprived of life liberty, violating due process of law,

nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal

protection of the laws. Ingraham v. Wright. 430 U.S.

651, 97 S.Ct. 1401 (1977

Supreme Court stated liberty includes “freedom from

bodily restraint and punishment” and “a right to be

free from and to obtain judicial relief, for unjustified

intrusions on personal security.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This action arose as a kidnapping, assault on April 24,

2017, upon discharge of Rynn daughter returning

8

home, depriving Rynn liberty rights, constitutional

rights violations, interference in legal custody,

interference in parental rights, violations of due

process, under color of law after a seven day stay of

classes at Quail Run location.

Quail Run doctor Tan Fermo told Rynn to take

daughter home and Tan Fermo under contractual

legal agreement, ordered signed discharge of Rynn

daughter (M.R.) to return home on April 24, 2017.

Quail Run had a duty to release and return M.R.

home on April 24, 2017. Instead of returning M.R.

home as legally contractually required, Quail Run, La

Frontera without authority, unconstitutionally,

unlawfully physically seized M.R. under color of law in

Maricopa County without cause from telephone fax

from state DCS in Pinal County not physically by

state DCS, without obtaining legal custody, without

9

legal authority, without cause, during April 24, 2017,

legal discharge to return home.

Defendants on April 24, 2017, unlawfully breached

legal contract requiring MLR. to return home with

parents Rynn. Defendants breached contract by

seizing, imprisoning M.R. instead of returning M.R.

home on April 24, 2017, as contractually required.

Breach of contract, interference in legal custody

continued to last date of accrual of actions under color

of law to October 9, 2018. Plaintiffs’ complaint

contains sufficient factual allegations to plausibly

demonstrate elements of each asserted claim.

In Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997),

Constitution, and Due Process Clause of Fourteenth

Amendment, protects fundamental right of parents to

direct the care, upbringing, and education of their

children. Due Process Clause in Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendments to United States Constitution, prohibit

deprivation of "life, liberty, without due process of law.

Defendants provided falsification of facts to courts.

The state violated Rynn constitutional rights to due

10

process, state does not have a legally enforceable

judgement against Rynn and does not have authority

over Rynn rights to his children.

State did not serve any court papers to Rynn.

District court judgement is factually false, omitted

facts, fraudulent, district court judgment of an arrival

of DCS is not cited to record. (Dk.59, pg. 2, line 10)

DCS did not arrive, did not take custody, did not seize

Rynn daughter (M.R.) on April 24, 2017, and did not

have authority to interfere in Richard Rynn parental

rights to custody of his daughter. Defendant La

Frontera Renee Miller agreed, contractually provided

classes at facility of Defendant Quail Run on April 17

2017.

Warrant, court order, notice was never issued to seize

M.R. on April 24, 2017, bringing liability to

Defendants.

Fourth Amendment, of Constitution protects citizens

from unreasonable search and seizure. Sixth

11

Amendment guarantees right to public trial, right to

lawyer, right to impartial jury, right to know who

accusers are, nature of charges, evidence against you.

Rynn deprived constitutional rights under fourth,

sixth, fourteenth amendments. Defendant Quail Run

entered into a signed legal contractual agreement

with Rynn on April 20, 2017. Performance under

contract was solely conditioned on M.R. being

returned home on April 24, 2017. Defendants had

implied obligation to make a reasonable, good faith

effort to satisfy contract by returning M.R. home on

April 24, 2017. Marcella seized and assaulted on April

24, 2017, without cause, instead of being returned

home as contractually required. Dispute not resolved.

Legal questions and Contradictions remain between

evidence and judgements affecting substantial rights

under Rule 103. Fraud proven as Discrepancy between

date M.R. seized April 24. 2017. and date of ex parte

one party filing April 28. 2017. dependency case,

12

proving no jurisdiction for a dependency case, and

actions under color of law, in violation of section 1983

title 42, violation of due process rights.

State lied to courts, abuse of process, had no legal

authority for dependency case, violation of Rynn

constitutional rights, due process rights, custody

rights, parental rights. AZ § 1-602, Court failure to

review material facts, evidence provided by Rynn that

affects final judgements. Section 1983 claim against

City, state or its officers and those conspiring with it.

Plaintiff shows (1) acts by defendants 2) under color

of state law 3) deprived Plaintiff of civil rights (such as

parent rights), privileges or immunities, and 4) caused

damage to Plaintiff.

Defendants did not obtain legal custody of M.R. on

April 24, 2017, to October 9, 2018.

1983 claim against either the City or its officers and

those conspiring with it. plaintiff shows that 1) acts by

13

defendants 2) under color of state law 3) deprived him

of civil rights (such as parent rights), privileges or

immunities, and 4) caused him damage. Thornton v.

City of St. Helens. 425 F.3d 1158, 1 163-64 (9*Cir.

2005) (quoting Shoshone-Barnnock Tribes v. Idaho

Fish & Game Comm'n. 42 F.3d 1278, 1284 (9th Cir.

1994). Plaintiff alleges that he suffered a specific

injury as a result of the conduct of each particular

defendant, and alleges an affirmative link between the

injury and that conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v.

Good. 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976).

There is conflict between United States District

court decision and the evidence.

Errors in final rulings of District court judge

John Tuchi Contradictions remain between

A and B below.

COURT ORDER (Dk.. 59), 8/16/2018, Case No.:

2:18-CV-00414-JJT

A. (Dk.. 59, Pg. 2 line 9 to 12) when DCS

arrived Zammit reported threat. DCS took

custody of M.R. and did not return her to her

parents. (Dk. 98 pg. 41

14

B. Not true, DCS did not arrive and no threats

, exist on April 24 2017. (Dk. 98 pg. 4) (Dk. 110;

pg. 1-18)

Court judgements entirely untrue, judgements differ

entirely from Plaintiffs account of the crime,

Defendants dismissed without adjudicating pending

motions, for Summary judgement, AZ Rule 60 motion

for New Trial, etc. and without an answer from

Defendants in violation of Fed. Rule 12 (a) due process

violation. (Dk. 110, pg. l-18)(Dk. 82, 98, 108)

Errors remain, failure to address factual matters in

dispute. Proven bias, evidence omitted, judgement in

direct contradiction to material evidence supported by

the record and by Plaintiff personal knowledge of facts

that are in dispute. Obstruction of justice, Defendants

purposely lied, omitted material evidence revealed in

year 2022 in violation of Brady Rule, to subvert final

judgement to one party without a fair trial.

15

Fed. Rule 103, (a)(b)(2)(c)(e) court may take notice

of error affecting substantial rights.(Commonwealth v

Arias 2017 Mass. App. Lexis 148) (Nov. 9,

2017)(Hardwick v. County Of Orange, No. 15-55563

9th Cir., 2017) (Beltran v. Santa Clara County. 514

F.3d 906) (9th Cir. 2008) District court John Tuchi

failed to recuse himself, Tuchi wife Maria del Mar

Verdin employed by state Defendants until year 2014

and employed by Department of Child Safety (DCS).

Arizona Rule 2.11 (A) A judge shall disqualify himself

in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality

might reasonably be questioned, including but not

limited to the following circumstances:(l) The judge

has personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or

personal knowledge of facts that are in dispute in the

proceeding, (c) was a material witness concerning the

matter; or(d) previously presided as a judge over the

matter in another court. Judge John Tuchi is a

16

i

material witness in the proceeding of Plaintiff lawsuit

First Transit (Dk. 11) (U.S. Supr. Ct. No. 22A1001)

REASONS FOR GRANTING WRIT

Writ required to resolve fraud, deprivations of

constitutional rights. Clearly judgements tainted by

fraud, to avoid deprivations of Rynn constitutional

rights of liberty, custody rights, parental rights

contractual rights, due process rights, etc. Judgements

untrue, vague, failure to adjudicate causes of action

starting on April 24, 2017, to last date on October 9,

2018. Fraud remains on record. Defendant Quail Run

UHS, Candy Zammit, La Frontera, Renee Miller, etc.

each acted under color of law as state actors for

Arizona State. State lied, did not take custody of M.R.,

acted outside of their authority. Defendants, each is

responsible for violating custody, parental rights,

violations of liberty, violations of civil, constitutional

rights, without cause, from causes of action of injury

17

on April 24, 2017, to October 9, 2018. Ninth circuit

failed to correct errors in district courts judgements.

Rynn District court Rule 60 motion, rule 59 motion,

Ninth circuit Opening Brief, Motion for

reconsideration stated DCS did not arrive, courts

failed to address the fact DCS did not arrive on April

24, 2017, facts remain in dispute without a final

judgement on the merits, in violation of due process.

Court failed to adjudicate a final judgment as it is

apparent from the record factual actions on April 24,

2017, not adjudicated, judge biased, Plaintiff evidence

not in judgement that DCS did not arrive on April 24,

2017 and did not take custody of Rynn daughter.

Truth matters, court must have accurate material

facts or judgement is void. State cannot lie of custody

without cause, without arriving to Plaintiff and

daughter MR. on April 24, 2017. Plaintiff complaint is

about an arrival of a paper from DCS, DCS did not

18

arrive (fraudulent paper). Paper faxed to Quail Run.

on April 24, 2017, is now known as fraudulent, not

legal. Plaintiffs’ complaint said Plaintiff was given a

document that said DCS took legal custody. (Doc. 60

pg. 5) a false document given by La Frontera to

Plaintiff not by state in contradiction (fraud) to

District Court ruling: DCS arrived, DCS took custody,

and DCS did not return her. (Document 59 Filed

08/16/18 Page 2) Plaintiff objects to State

Defendants falsification of material facts on brief to

district court (perjury) State Defendants said: state

took emergency custody of MR and filed a dependency

petition. (Doc. 62 page 3) In order for state to take

custody of MR state must seize MR.. It is apparent

from the record State failed to seize MR. on April 24,

2017. It is apparent from the record there was no

emergency and State did not take custody of Plaintiffs

daughter on April 24, 2017. State was not at location

19

of MR and did not see or touch, did not talk to Plaintiff

daughter MR. on April 24, 2017.

State did not have authority to phone and fax QR.

and LF on April 24, 2017, and lie about a custody as

Plaintiff daughter custody belongs to legal birth

parents Plaintiff Richard and wife Gelliana. New

evidence Discovered in year 2022, State Defendant did

not file a court petition until four days later on April

28, 2017, (Doc. 62-1, pg. 1-20) petition is proven false,

fraudulent, filed ex parte, without a summons, and

without service to Plaintiff in violation of due process,

and without notifying courts that state did not seize

Plaintiff daughter on April 24, 2017. Rule 4.1, Service

of process required.

Violation of due process, Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S.

458, 58 S.Ct. 1019; Pure Oil Co. v. City of Northlake,

10 Ill.2d 241, 245, 140 N.E. 2d 289 (1956)

20

Defendants responsible for violating Plaintiff

constitutional rights, State Defendant did not obtain a

legally enforceable judgement, did not obtain legal

custody of Plaintiff daughter. Private companies

Quail Run and La Frontera for profit seized,

kidnapped, Plaintiff daughter at facility of Quail Run

during discharge to go home under color of law for

state and not by state.

Compensation rightfully due, Defendants interfered

in custody, parental rights, caused intentional

emotional distress, violated constitutional, civil rights.

Case expanded in multiple courts, with errors.

multiple contradictions to judge’s rulings, unresolved.

State Defendant has no immunity for fraud, actions

outside of their authority, lying about issues central to

case proven by evidence in contrary to statements by

Defendants.(Monell v. Department of Social Services

436 U.S. 658) (1978) Ariz. R. Civ. P. 9. Plaintiff

21

prejudiced by dismissal of case while dispute not

resolved on the merits.

A.R.S. Rule 52 (5) Questioning the Evidentiary

Support. A party may question the sufficiency of the

evidence supporting the findings(6) Setting Aside the

Findings. Must be set aside when clearly erroneous.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(6) Fraud upon the court, In re

Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill, App. 3d 393(1962)

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Rynn respectfully

requests court issue Writ of Certiorari to review

judgment of Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and

District court of Arizona.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

this 31st day of July 2023.

Richard Rynn

22