Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Hussein S. Yousif, Petitioner v. Susan Larson Christensen, et al.
Supreme Court briefApr 25, 2025
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
FILED
APR 2 5 2025
..25-5092
In the Supreme Court of the United States
HUSSEIN S. YOUSIF, PETITIONER
V.
SUSAN LARSON CHRISTENSEN, BADDING, P.J., BULLER, J., DANILSON,
S.J. AND SARAH CRANE, DEFENDANTS
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE EIGHT CIRCUIT
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Hussein S. Yousif
Hussein99Yousif@gmail.com
2506 50th St Des Moines, IA50310
Cell Phone 515-991-2555
RECEIVED
JUL - 9 2025
Page 1 of 34
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
SUPREME COURT, U.S.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Does Logic disqualify Judicial actions?
References Appellate Case: 24-3437 Date Filed: 12/05/2024 Entry ID: 5463070.
Statutory provisions Is the first and the fourteenth Amendment meaningless in
the Constitution for a Citizen of United States with Rule 41 argument?
Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 229 (1988);
Spencer v. Doe, 139 F. 3d 107 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1998;
Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n ofFla., 480 US 136 - Supreme Court 1987.
Is the first and the fourteenth Amendment meaningless in the Constitution for a
Citizen of United States?
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 US 398 - Supreme Court 1963;
Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 187 (1961);
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857);
Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 218 (1944).
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 98 (1884);
Tick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886).
Page 2 of 34
TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
4
I. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
13
II. OPINIONS BELOW
13
III JURISDICTION
13
IV. STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED
13
V. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
13
Statutory provisions Is the first and the fourteenth Amendment meaningless in
the Constitution for a Citizen of United States with Rule 41 argument? Chambers
v. Nasco, Inc., 501 US 32 - Supreme Court 1991; McLaurin v. Oklahoma State
Regents for Higher Ed., 339 U.S. 637,639- 642 (1950); Peterson v. City of
Greenville, 373 U.S. 244, 248 (1963).
20
(C) Is the first and the fourteenth Amendment meaningless in the Constitution
for a Citizen of United States? Chambers v. Sanders, 63 F. 4th 1092 - Court of
Appeals, 6th Circuit 2023; Golden State Transit Corp. v. City ofLos Angeles, 493
U.S. 103, 105 (1989); Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1, 6-8 (1980).
22
VI. REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT
28
CONCLUSION
31
CAUSES OF ACTION
31
DAMAGES
32
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
34
APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS
District Court 4:24-cv-00319-SMR-SBJ
Federal Court of Appeals No: 24-3437
Iowa Supreme Court No.21-1861 Polk County No. CVCV061404
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 21-1861 Filed March 29, 2023
The Supreme Court Susan Larson Christensen wrote on 05/22/2023, “After consideration by
this court, en banc, further review of the above-captioned case is denied. Please investigate.
Page 3 of 34
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
THE FEDERAL COURT AUTHORITY
Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 255-268 (1967);............................................................................. 31
Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 713-15 (1999),................................................................................30
AL-FAROUK v. Nelson, Dist. Court, D. Nevada 2024.................................................................... 19
Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 US 564 - Supreme Court 1985 ............................... .•
18, 27
Anderson v. Martin, 375 U.S. 399, 404 (1964);.............................................................................. 29
Bach v. Friden Calculating Mach. Co., 148 F. 2d 407 - Circuit Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit
1945...........................................................................................................................................14,21
Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F. 3d 837 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2000................ 21
Berry v. Cigna/RSI-Cigna, 975 F. 2d 1188 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 1992....................... 21
Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388,397-398 (1971)............................. 24
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau ofNarcotics, 403U.S. 388, 410 (1971 ...29
Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University ofIII. Foundation, 402 U. S. 313, 324, n. 12
(1971).............................................................................................................................................. 20
Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 118 S. Ct. 966 (1998).............................................................25
Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. 211, 222 (2011);........................................................................... 31
Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 351-52 (1872)............................................................. 30
Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961....................................................... 30
Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715, 726 (1961............................................... 29
Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 512-13 (1978)............................................................................ 30
Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 673 (1974))).................................. 31
California v. Grace Brethren Church, 457 US 393 - Supreme Court 1982................................ ...18
Page 4 of 34
Campbell v. Wilkinson, 988 F. 3d 798 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 2021 ................................ 21
Canton v. Harris, 489 US 378 - Supreme Court 1989...................................... :............................. 24
Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 US 32 - Supreme Court 1991......................................................... 20
Chambers v. Sanders, 63 F. 4th 1092 - Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit 2023................................. 22
Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F. 3d 199 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2015 ..21
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 454 (1793)...................................................................30
Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F. 3d 661 - Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit 2004................... 20
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 399 (1821));................................................................................31
Colon v. Mack 56 F. 3d 5 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1995................................................... 21
Cone v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co., 330 U.S. 212, 217, 67 S.Ct. 752, 91 L.Ed. 849 (1947)
..................................................................................................................................................... 21
Cox v. Dept. ofSoc. & Health Servs., 913 F.3d 831, 837 (9th Cir. 2019....................................... 26
Dotzel v. Ashbridge, 438 F.3d 320, 324 (3d Cir. 2006....................................................................29
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 407 (1857....................................................................... 28, 31
Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974)......................................................................................... 24
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 98 (1884)..............................................................................................29
Employment Div., Dept, ofHuman Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 US 872 - Supreme Court
1990...........................................................................................................................................15, 18
Federal Deposit Ins. Corporation v. Mason, 115 F. 2d 548 - Circuit Court of Appeals, 3rd
Circuit 1940.....................................................................................................................................21
Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U. S. 394, 398 (1981)..................................... 29
Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 229 (1988).................................................................................. 18
Forrester v. White, 484 US 219 - Supreme Court 1988)................................................................. 25
Page 5 of 34
Frazee v. Illinois Dept, ofEmployment Security, 489 US 829 - Supreme Court 1989
18
Golden State Transit Corp. v. City ofLos Angeles, 493 U.S. 103, 105 (1989)
22
Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960
29
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479 - Supreme Court 1965
26
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003)
29
Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 109, 110 (1945
29
Hardwick v. County of Orange, Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2020
26
Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. US Forest Service, 403 F. 3d 683 - Court of Appeals, 9th
Circuit 2005................................................................. .■
20, 21
Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 US 428 - Supreme Court 2011
17
Hernandez v. City ofEl Monte, 138 F. 3d 393 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1998
21
Hildebrand v. Honeywell, Inc., 622 F. 2d 179 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 1980
20
Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, (1943)
28
Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n of Fla., 480 US 136 - Supreme Court 1987
18
HOME OWNERS'LOAN CORPORATION v. Huffman, 134 F. 2d 314 - Circuit Court of Appeals,
8th Circuit 1943
21
Hustler Mag., Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 53 (1988)
27
Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499, 505 (2005
30
Jones v. Cummings, 998 F.3d 782, 787-88 (7th Cir. 2021
24
Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 218 (1944
28
Legislative Research Commission v. Brown, 664 S.W.2d 907, 918-19 (Ky. 1984)
17
Lombard v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 267, 274 (1963)
29
Lopez v. Aransas Cty. Independent Sch. Dist., 570 F. 2d 541 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 1978
Page 6 of 34
......................................................................................................................................................... 21
Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 931, 942 (1982)........................................................29
Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1, 6-8 (1980)..................................................................................... 22
Malone v. US Postal Service, 833 F. 2d 128 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1987...................... 21
Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 US 304 - Supreme Court 1816........................................................26
Martinez v. Department ofIndustry, 478 N.W.2d 582 (Wis. 1992............................................... 17
Mateas v. Fred Harvey, 146 F. 2d 989 - Circuit Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1945;................. 21
McGowan v. Faulkner Concrete Pipe Co., 659 F. 2d 554 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 1981 14,
20
McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Ed., 339 U.S. 637,639- 642 (1950)................. 20
Meinecke v. H &R BLOCK OF HOUSTON, 66 F. 3d 77 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 1995..20
Melendez v. City ofNew York, 16 F. 4th 992 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2021..................... 19
Monell v. New York Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).................................... 24
Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 172 (1961)
24, 27, 28, 29
Monroe v. Pape, 365 US 167 - Supreme Court 1961...................................................................... 23
Morris v. Ocean Systems, Inc., 730 F. 2d 248 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 1984.................... 20
Nasious v. Two Unknown BICE Agents, 492 F. 3d 1158 - Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit 2007 .21
National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Tarkanian, 488 US 179 - Supreme Court 1988.................. 24
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964)........................................................... 30
New Yorkv. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 149, 174-76 (1992)......................................................31
Osborn v. Bank of United States, 22 US 738 - Supreme Court 1824............................................. 31
Ozawa v. United States, 260 U.S. 178 (1922).................................................................................. 28
Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 US 429 )- Supreme Court 1984...................................................................25
Page 7 of 34
Patsy v. Board ofRegents of Fla., 457 U.S. 496 - Supreme Court 1982...................................... 29
Patterson v. Van Arsdel, 883 F.3d 826, 830- 32 (9th Cir. 2018).................................................. 25
Perez v. Brownell, 356 US 44 - Supreme Court 1958 ..................................................................... 31
Peterson v. City of Greenville, 373 U.S. 244, 248 (1963)......................................................... 20, 29
Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 551-57 (1967)........................................................................... 27, 30
Pierson v. Ray, 386 US 547 - Supreme Court 1967.)...................................................................... 27
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 554 (1896).................................................................................29
Printzv. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 925-33 (1997)..................................................................... 31
Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, 136 S. Ct. 1863 (2016...................................................................... 31
Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 - Supreme Court 1973........................................................................... 26
Rogers v. Kroger Co., 669 F. 2d 317 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 1982................................. 20
Rostkerv. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57, 70 (1981)................................................................................... 28
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U. S. 232, 248 (1974).................................................................................24
Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 103 (1945 ............................................................................ 30
Serrano v. Francis, 345 F. 3d 1071, 1075 (2003)........................................................................... 25
Sessions v. Morales-Santana, 582 US 47 - Supreme Court 2017................................................... 31
Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 US 1 - Supreme Court 1948 .................................................................... 25
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 US 398 - Supreme Court 1963;................................................................18
Soranno's Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F. 2d 1310 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1989)............ 25
Spencer v. Doe, 139 F. 3d 107 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1998....................................
21
Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 US 548 - Supreme Court 1937.............................................. 18
Strauderv. West Virginia, 100 US 303 - Supreme Court 1880....................................................... 26
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355 (1978)................................................................................. 30
Page 8 of 34
Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 372 (1951)............................................................................ 27
Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 US 367 - Supreme Court 1951............................................................ 27
Tetro v. Elliott Popham Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick, and GMC Trucks, 173 F. 3d 988 - Court of
Appeals, 6th Circuit 1999.............................................................................................................. 21
Thomas v. Review Bd. ofIndiana Employment Security Div., 450 US 707 - Supreme Court 1981
.......................................................................................................................................... 18
Tolbert v. Leighton, 623 F. 2d 585 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1980...................................... 21
Turner v. Impala Motors, 503 F. 2d 607, 609 (1974........................................................................ 25
Turner v. Memphis, 369 US 350, 354 (1962)................................................................................... 29
United States v. GERSKY, Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit 2020.......................................................27
United States v. Lee, 455 US 252 - Supreme Court 1982................................................................18
United States v. Lyman, 125 F. 2d 67 - Circuit Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit 1942 ..................... 21
United States v. Original Knights of Ku Klux Klan, 250 F. Supp. 330 - Dist.Court, ED Louisiana
1965................................................................................................................................................ 29
United States v. Price, 383 US. 787 - Supreme Court 1966........................................................... 25
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 653 (1898.............................................................. 29
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649 - Supreme Court 1898;............................................ 31
Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F. 3d 72 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1997..................................13, 21
Wabol v. Villacrusis, 958 F.2d 1450, 1460 (9th Cir. 1990)............................................................ 31
Webster Cty. Bd. ofSup'rs v. Flattery, 268 NW 2d 869 - Iowa: Supreme Court 1978................. 17
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988............................................................................................... 24
White v. New Hampshire Dept, ofEmployment Security, 455 US 445 - Supreme Court 1982 ....18
Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158, 162(1992)
,........................................................................24
Page 9 of 34
Wynder v. McMahon, 360 F. 3d 73 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2004................................... 21
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886................................................................................ 28
Iowa Supreme Court Cases
Arndt v. City of Le Claire, 728 NW 2d 389 - Iowa: Supreme Court 2007...................................... 15
Christensen v. SNAP-ON TOOLS CORPORATION, 554 NW 2d 254 - Iowa: Supreme Court
1996......................................................................................................................................... 14, 15
Claeys v. Moldenschardt, 260 Iowa 36, 43, 148 N.W.2d 479, 483 (Iowa 1967)........................... 16
Cosper v. Iowa Dep't ofJob Serv., 321 N.W.2d 6, 10 (Iowa 1982)............................................... 17
Cosper v. Iowa Dept, ofJob Service, 321 NW 2d 6 - Iowa: Supreme Court 1982........................16
Gimbel v. Employment Appeal Bd., 489 NW 2d 36 - Iowa: Court of Appeals 1992.............. 14, 17
Houlihan v. Employment Appeal Bd., 545 NW 2d 863 - Iowa: Supreme Court 1996.................. 15
Insurance Co. ofNo Amer. v. Sperry & Hutchison Co., 168 NW 2d 753 - Iowa: Supreme Court
16
1969..........................
Klouda v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Dept., 642 NW 2d 255 - Iowa: Supreme Court 2002.................... 18
Lacina v. Maxwell, 501 NW 2d 531 - Iowa: Supreme Court 1993 ................................................ 18
Madsen v. Litton Indus., 498 N.W.2d 715 (Iowa 1993)................................................................... 16
Meyer v. IBP, Inc., 710 N.W.2d 213, 219 (Iowa 2006)................................................................... 14
Meyer v. IBP, Inc., 710 NW 2d 213 - Iowa: Supreme Court 2006..................................................17
PURETHANE v. Iowa State Bd. of Tax Review, 498 NW 2d 706 - Iowa: Supreme Court 1993.16
Rooney v. Employment Appeal Bd., 448 NW 2d 313 - Iowa: Supreme Court 1989.......................16
Sharp v. Employment appeal Bd., 479 NW 2d 280 - Iowa: Supreme Court 1991......................... 17
Silva v. Employment Appeal Bd., 547 N W 2d 232 Iowa: Court of Appeals 1996......................... 16
Sioux City v. Young, 97 NW 2d 907 - Iowa: Supreme Court 1959............................................... 18
Page 10 of 34
State v. Kolbet, 638 NW 2d 653 - Iowa: Supreme Court 2001 ...................................................... 18
Timmons v. Employment Appeal Board, Iowa: Court of Appeals 2017........................................ 14
White v. Employment Appeal Board, 487 NW 2d 342 - Iowa: Supreme Court 1992.................... 17
Whitehorn v. Lovik, 398 NW 2d 851 - Iowa: Supreme Court 1987......................................... 14, 15
Iowa Code Section
Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(m)............................................................................................................ 14
Iowa Code § 96.5(1).......................................................................................................................... 17
THE OTHER CASES
ACLU of Utah v. State, 467 P. 3d 832 - Utah: Supreme Court 2020.............................................. 20
ANGSTMAN v. Department ofLabor, Vt: Supreme Court 2022................................................... 20
Benes v. State, Nev: Court of Appeals 2024;.................................................................................. 18
Benoist v. Westin Trading, Inc., 662 SW 3d 146 - Mo: Court of Appeals, Eastern Dist., 4th Div.
2023................................................................................................................................................. 18
Bracken v. DEPT OF LABOR AND REGULATION, 991 NW 2d 89 - SD: Supreme Court 2023
..........................................................................................................................................................19
Brummett v. BEEBE HEALTHCARE, Del: Superior Court 2022.................................................. 20
Burton v. Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, Del: Superior Court 2024.............................20
GILKISONv. KENTUCKY UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION, Ky: Court of
Appeals 2023................................................................................................................................... 18
GIMPELEV v. Board ofReview, NJ: Appellate Div. 2023............................................................. 20
HIRA EDUC. SERVICESNORTHAMERICA v. Augustine, 991 F. 3d 180, 190 (3rd Cir. 2021..27
IN RE APPEAL OF LaPADULA, NH: Supreme Court 2024........................................................ 20
Page 11 of 34
Mack v. Williams, Dist. Court, D. Nevada 2019.............................................................................. 25
Martin v. Dept, of Workforce Services, 507 P. 3d 847 - Utah: Court of Appeals 2022................. 19
McClendon v. Bernard, Dist. Court, ED Arkansas 2021 ................................................................. 19
Onyilogwu v. Onyilogwu, 289 A. 3d 1214 - Conn: Appellate Court 2023;................................... 20
Palladino v. Unemployment Compensation Board ofReview, 81 A. 3d 1096 - Pa:
Commonwealth Court 2013...........................................................................................................20
Scales v. State, 658 SW 3d 366 - Tex: Court of Appeals, 13th Dist. 2022................................... 18
Sheehan v. Sun Valley Co., 519 P. 3d 1188 - Idaho: Supreme Court 2022................................... 20
Soler v. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES, 2022 Ark. App. 37 - Ark:
Court of Appeals, 2nd Div. 2022;................................................................................................. 18
State v. Gnanaprakasam, 967 NW 2d 89 - Neb: Supreme Court 2021..........................................20
State v. Spell, 339 So. 3d 1125 - La: Supreme Court 2022.............................................................. 20
Swam v. Thompson, 893 SE 2d 474 - Ga: Court of Appeals 2023................................................ 18
Thompson v. Kentucky Unemployment Ins., 85 SW 3d 621, - Ky: Court of Appeals 2002...........19
Yousif v. IOWA WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, Iowa: Court of Appeals 2023 ...................... 19
Constitutional Provisions
U.S. CONST, art. IV, § 2, cl. 1........................................................................................................ 28
U.S. CONST, art. IV, § 2, cl. 1......................................................................................................... 13
Page 12 of 34
I. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Hussein S. Yousif petitions the Court for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit.
II. OPINIONS BELOW
In accordance with the judgment of February 6, 2025, and pursuant to the provisions of Federal
Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(a), the formal mandate is hereby issued in the above styled
matter. March 19, 2025. The court motion to stay or recall is denied by the court on March 28,
2025.
Ill JURISDICTION
The Appealed with Court ofAppeals 8th circuit 24-3437. LOKEN, ERICKSON, and
STRAS, Circuit Judges. This petition is timely filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 13.1. This
Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).
IV. STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(a), which authorizes a to grant relief from a final
judgment in a civil case. U.S. C ONST. art. IV, § 2, cl. 1. U.S. CONST, amend. XIV. 28 U.S.C. §
1254(1).
V. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction Hussein S. Yousif is a Citizen of United States. Applying logic is the issue
with rule 41. The first Amendment petition the government and 14th amendment. Establishing
Logic Reference Appellate Case: 24-3437 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/05/2024 Entry ID:
5463070. U.S. CONST, art. IV, §2, cl. 1. U.S. CONST, amend. XIV The United the Civil
Rights Acts (1964) 42 U. S. C. § 1983. According to Rule 41 other cases were granted.
Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F. 3d 72 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1997; Bach v. Friden
Page 13 of 34
Calculating Mach. Co., 148 F. 2d 407 - Circuit Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit 1945; McGowan
v. Faulkner Concrete Pipe Co., 659 F. 2d 554 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 1981.
Establishing Logic Iowa Code Iowa Admin Code r. 11-63.3, 63.5(4). 11-63.3 5(4) Iowa
Code § 17A.19(10)(m) Gimbel v. Employment Appeal Bd., 489 NW 2d 36 - Iowa: Court of
Appeals 1992, Timmons v. Employment Appeal Board, Iowa: Court of Appeals 2017. Iowa
Code Section 1C.2,1. Iowa Code 96.6(4) Iowa Code 96.7(2)(b).
App. 263-264 (Exhibit proposed 17) 12/11/2020 clearly plaintiff was on being for
medical health reasons. Christensen v. SNAP-ON TOOLS CORPORATION, 554 NW 2d 254 -
Iowa: Supreme Court 1996. Iowa Admin. Code r. 871-24.32. December 25, 2020 Lucas
building is closed for the holiday. December 11, 2020 plaintiff was on App. 263-264 (Exhibit
proposed 17 at 264) Azithromycin Tablets USP for medical reasons 5 daily doses works
through 10 days. Whitehorn v. Lovik, 398 NW 2d 851 - Iowa: Supreme Court 1987.
Iowa Admin. Code r. 871-24.32 Timmons v. Employment Appeal Board, Iowa: Court of
Appeals 2017 under section Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(m) to determine whether the decision is
"illogical, irrational, or wholly unjustifiable." Meyer v. IBP, Inc., 710 N.W.2d 213, 219 (Iowa
2006). We also look to see whether the agency "abused its discretion by, for example,
employing wholly irrational reasoning or ignoring important and relevant evidence."
Plaintiff had App. 188 (Exhibit Proposed 15 at 3) records shows plaintiff had Covid
4/30/2021 and App. 143 (Exhibit Proposed 12 at 3) 12 05/04/2021 show plaintiff had Covid.
Regardless of the two days, Iowa Workforce development at el actions were completely
careless and should be hold accountable for the actions by logic. Iowa Workforce Development
had plenty of chances to give plaintiff his money before leading to the point of two ridiculous
days. December 25, 2020 Lucas building is closed for the holiday. December 11, 2020 plaintiff
Page 14 of 34
was on App. 263-264 (Exhibit proposed 17 at 264) Azithromycin Tablets USP for medical
reasons 5 daily doses works through 10 days. Whitehorn v. Lovik, 398 NW 2d 851 - Iowa:
Supreme Court 1987. Employment Div., Dept, ofHuman Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 US
872 - Supreme Court 1990.
The court of appeals erred with logic. Plaintiff did in fact did some research around that
time if appears on December 11, 2020 plaintiff was on Azithromycin Tablets USP for health
issues 5 daily doses works through 10 days. In the App. 170 (Exhibit Proposed 13 at 170-177
and App. 160 (Exhibit Proposed 14 at 160-169) shows a petitioner checking amount. App 20407 (Cert. Rec. at 9-13). Clearly shows before the 2 ridiculous days in October 19, 2020
Hussein Yousif was denied PUA benefits. App. 263-264 (Exhibit proposed 17) 12/11/2020
clearly plaintiff was on being for medical health reasons. App. 188 (Exhibit Proposed 15 at 3)
records show’s plaintiff had Covid 4/30/2021 and App. 143 (Exhibit Proposed 12 at 3) 12
05/04/2021 show plaintiff had Covid. Hussein Yousif vs Iowa Workforce Development at el.
Arndt v. City ofLe Claire, 728 NW 2d 389 - Iowa: Supreme Court 2007. Houlihan v.
Employment Appeal Bd., 545 NW 2d 863 - Iowa: Supreme Court 1996.Employment Appeal
Board is found in Iowa Administrative Code rule 486-3.1(17). Like rule 236, the purpose of
rule 486-3.1(17).
Exhibit 05771 CVCV061404 send by defendant under App 206-07 (Cert. Rec. at 12-13)
The Administrative Judge reasoning’s were unethical and incorrect illogical Christensen v.
SNAP-ON TOOLS CORPORATION, 554 NW 2d 254 - Iowa: Supreme Court 1996. A
reasonable cause or excuse exists if either (1) the delay was necessary for the insurer to
investigate the claim, or (2) the employer had a reasonable basis to contest the employee's
entitlement to benefits. Silva v. Employment Appeal Bd., 547 NW 2d 232 Iowa: Court of
Page 15 of 34
Appeals 1996. Id. at 236.
Hussein Yousif got approved for PUA in the beginning but later the changed it to Other
IT issues and under Other they denied his PUA. Since this was a doctor prescription it was in
the frame time when Hussein Yousif got mail from Iowa Workforce Development at el. This
case has substantial evidence and must be settled by the Supreme Court. Should prescription
from a professional doctor for medical health excuse the fifteen days for Hussein Yousif
wellbeing?
Public concerns the fifteen days is a simple rule but here we have a medical health
involved. Insurance Co. ofNo Amer. v. Sperry & Hutchison Co., 168 NW 2d 753 - Iowa:
Supreme Court 1969 “This court has been liberal in affirming determinations of default-
7
voiding mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect in rule 236 appeals.” Cosper v. Iowa
Dept, ofJob Service, 321 NW 2d 6 - Iowa: Supreme Court 1982. Excessive absenteeism
caused by an incapacitating illness or other reasonable grounds for which the claimant is
excused is not misconduct. Madsen v. Litton Indus., 498 N.W.2d 715 (Iowa 1993). Rule 236.
PURETHANE v. Iowa State Bd. of Tax Review, 498 NW 2d 706 - Iowa: Supreme
Court 1993. Good cause does not include "mistakes or erred of judgment growing out of...
misunderstanding of the law or the failure of the parties or counsel through mistake to avail
themselves of remedies, which if resorted to would have prevented the casualty or misfortune."
Claeys v. Moldenschardt, 260 Iowa 36, 43, 148 N.W.2d 479, 483 (Iowa 1967).
Rooney v. Employment Appeal Bd., 448 NW 2d 313 - Iowa: Supreme Court 1989.
First, when the illness is either "caused or aggravated by circumstances associated with the
employment," regardless of the employee's predisposition to succumb to the illness, the
separation will be deemed to be with "good cause attributable to the individual's employer." -
Page 16 of 34
the individual's employer." - in White v. Employment Appeal Board, 487 NW 2d 342 - Iowa:
Supreme Court 1992.
The scope of standard review Hussein Yousif vs. Iowa Workforce Development at el in
Gimbel v. Employment Appeal Bd., 489 NW 2d 36 - Iowa: Court of Appeals 1992. If you look
at Exhibit 05771 CVCV061404 send by defendant under App 206-07 (Cert. Rec. at 12-13).
Meyer v. IBP, Inc., 710 NW 2d 213 - Iowa: Supreme Court 2006.
Logical invalidity disqualifies the actions of all judges due to Iowa Code 17a. 19 (10)
(m) illogical which is a violation of 1st and 14th amendment applies in federal court. Hussein
Yousif should have been eligible for the PUA and should receive his PUA benefits before the
2 pretext days. Iowa Workforce Development at el broke the law. Plaintiff send a picture of
his driver license, and his tax returns to Iowa Workforce Development at el. Logic shows the
2 days argument is just a pretext, Iowa Workforce Development at el failed to investigate 2-
day delay, Locus building lady refused to take papers from plaintiff, “A decision is already
made.” Refused to take paper from Hussein Yousif. Iowa Code Section 1C.2,1. Iowa Admin.
Coder. 11-63.3 63.3(4) and 63.3(5).
Iowa Code § 96.5(1) Cosper v. Iowa Dep't ofJob Serv., 321 N.W.2d 6, 10 (Iowa
1982). Iowa Supreme Courthouse had similar case like this Sharp v. Employment appeal Bd.,
479 NW 2d 280 - Iowa: Supreme Court 1991.
Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 US 428 - Supreme Court 2011. Webster
Cty. Bd. ofSup'rs v. Flattery, 268 NW 2d 869 - Iowa: Supreme Court 1978. Legislative
Research Commission v. Brown, 664 S.W.2d 907, 918-19 (Ky. 1984) (delay power held
violative of separation of powers); contra, Martinez v. Department ofIndustry, 478 N.W.2d
582 (Wis. 1992 (statutory delay power not a violation of separation of powers) Id. at 702 "By
Page 17 of 34
the Court. The decision of the court of appeals is reversed.” Klouda v. Sixth Judicial Dist.
Dept., 642 NW 2d 255 - Iowa: Supreme Court 2002. Id. at 263 reversed and remanded.
Lacina v. Maxwell, 501 NW 2d 531 - Iowa: Supreme Court 1993. Sioux City v. Young, 97
NW 2d 907 - Iowa: Supreme Court 1959. State v. Kolbet, 638 NW 2d 653 - Iowa: Supreme
Court 2001. Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 US 564 - Supreme Court 1985. Id. at 581
“Judge's conclusions are clearly erroneous. On the record before us, we cannot say that they
are. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is Reversed. ”
(A)
United States Supreme Court Authority Thomas v. Review Bd. ofIndiana
Employment Security Div., 450 US 707 - Supreme Court 1981; United States v. Lee, 455 US
252 - Supreme Court 1982; Employment Div., Dept, ofHuman Resources of Ore. v. Smith,
494 US 872 - Supreme Court 1990; White v. New Hampshire Dept, ofEmployment Security,
455 US 445 - Supreme Court 1982; Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n ofFla., 480
US 136 - Supreme Court 1987; Sherbert v. Verner, 374 US 398 - Supreme Court 1963;
Frazee v. Illinois Dept, ofEmployment Security, 489 US 829 - Supreme Court 1989;
California v. Grace Brethren Church, 457 US 393 - Supreme Court 1982; Steward Machine
Co. v. Davis, 301 US 548 - Supreme Court 1937. Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 229
(1988).
State court of appeals conflicts Soler v. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE
SERVICES, 2022 Ark. App. 37 - Ark: Court of Appeals, 2nd Div. 2022; Benes v. State, Nev:
Court of Appeals 2024; Benoist v. Westin Trading, Inc., 662 SW 3d 146 - Mo: Court of Appeals,
Eastern Dist., 4th Div. 2023; IN THE MATTER OF HEIN, Minn: Court of Appeals 2022; Swam
v. Thompson, 893 SE 2d 474 - Ga: Court of Appeals 2023; GILKISON v. KENTUCKY
Page 18 of 34
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION, Ky: Court of Appeals 2023; Scales v. State,
658 SW 3d 366 - Tex: Court of Appeals, 13th Dist. 2022
(ineligible) Yousif v. IOWA WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, Iowa: Court of Appeals 2023;
Thompson v. Kentucky Unemployment Ins., 85 SW 3d 621, - Ky: Court of Appeals 2002; Martin
v. Dept, of Workforce Services, 507 P. 3d 847 - Utah: Court of Appeals 2022.
Federal Court of Appeals Conflict AL-FAROUK v. Nelson, Dist. Court, D. Nevada 2024;
Melendez v. City ofNew York, 16 F. 4th 992 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2021.
Ineligible McClendon v. Bernard, Dist. Court, ED Arkansas 2021.
NATURE OF PROCEEDING
The Supreme Court of Iowa “The judges violated the petitioner’s Constitutional civil
rights. The judges violated harming publicly causing harm to Hussein S. Yousif Constitutional
Civil rights Opinion affirmed March 29, 2023. Application for further review on April 17,
2023. Would the United States Supreme Court please investigate this document Susan Larson
Christensen wrote on 05/22/2023, “After consideration by this court, en banc, further review
of the above-captioned case is denied. The district court Judge Stephanie M. Rose 1st of
November is having is her way. The Court ofAppeals 8th circuit 24-3437. LOKEN, ERICKSON,
and STRAS, Circuit Judges. Is the first and the fourteenth Amendment meaningless in the
Constitution for a Citizen of United States? References Appellate Case: 24-3437 Date Filed:
12/05/2024 Entry ID: 5463070. Reference Appellate Case: 24-3437 Date Filed: 02/18/2025
Entry ID: 5486970. Appellate Case: 24-3437Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/26/2025 Entry ID:
5500234 denied by the court.
(B)
State Supreme Court Conflicts. Is Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(a) not conflict
with other cases presented below?
Page 19 of 34
State Supreme Court Conflicts Bracken u DEPT. OF LABOR AND REGULATION, 991 NW 2d
89 - SD: Supreme Court 2023; Palladino v. Unemployment Compensation Board ofReview, 81
A. 3d 1096 - Pa: Commonwealth Court 2013; G1MPELEV v. Board ofReview, NJ: Appellate
Div. 2023; Onyilogwu v. Onyilogwu, 289 A. 3d 1214 - Conn: Appellate Court 2023; ANGSTMAN
v. Department ofLabor, Vt: Supreme Court 2022; Burton v. Unemployment Insurance Appeal
Board, Del: Superior Court 2024; IN RE APPEAL OF LaPADULA, NH: Supreme Court 2024;
State v. Spell, 339 So. 3d 1125 - La: Supreme Court 2022.
Ineligible Brummell v. BEEBE HEALTHCARE, Del: Superior Court 2022; State v.
Gnanaprakasam, 967 NW 2d 89 - Neb: Supreme Court 2021; IN THE MATTER OF THE
PETITION OF WILLIAM WEBB FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS, Del: Supreme Court 2021;
Sheehan v. Sun Valley Co., 519 P. 3d 1188 - Idaho: Supreme Court 2022; ACLU of Utah v. State,
467 P. 3d 832 - Utah: Supreme Court 2020.
Statutory provisions Is the first and the fourteenth Amendment meaningless in the
Constitution for a Citizen of United States with Rule 41 argument? Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.,
501 US 32 - Supreme Court 1991; McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Ed., 339
U.S. 637,639- 642 (1950); Peterson v. City of Greenville, 373 U.S. 244, 248 (1963).
Federal Court of Appeals Rulings on 41 Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University
ofIII. Foundation, 402 U. S. 313, 324, n. 12 (1971); Morris v. Ocean Systems, Inc., 730 F. 2d 248
- Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 1984; Rogers v. Kroger Co., 669 F. 2d 317 - Court of Appeals, 5th
Circuit 1982; McGowan v. Faulkner Concrete Pipe Co., 659 F. 2d 554 - Court of Appeals, 5th
Circuit 1981; Hildebrand v. Honeywell, Inc., 622 F. 2d 179 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 1980;
Meinecke v. H &R BLOCK OF HOUSTON, 66 F. 3d 77 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 1995;
Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. US Forest Service, 403 F. 3d 683 - Court of Appeals, 9th
Page 20 of 34
Circuit 2005; Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F. 3d 661 - Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit 2004;
Malone v. US Postal Service, 833 F. 2d 128 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1987; Tolbert v.
Leighton, 623 F. 2d 585 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1980.
Rule 41 Bach v. Friden Calculating Mach. Co., 148 F. 2d 407 - Circuit Court of Appeals,
6th Circuit 1945; Federal Deposit Ins. Corporation v. Mason, 115 F. 2d 548 - Circuit Court of
Appeals, 3rd Circuit 1940; Mateas v. Fred Harvey, 146 F. 2d 989 - Circuit Court of Appeals, 9th
Circuit 1945; Cone v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co., 330 U.S. 212, 217, 67 S.Ct. 752, 91 L.Ed.
849 (1947); HOME OWNERS'LOAN CORPORATIONv. Huffman, 134 F. 2d 314 - Circuit Court
of Appeals, 8th Circuit 1943; United States v. Lyman, 125 F. 2d 67 - Circuit Court of Appeals, 1st
Circuit 1942; Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. US Forest Service, 403 F. 3d 683 - Court of
Appeals, 9th Circuit 2005; Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F. 3d 199 - Court of
Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2015; Berry v. Cigna/RSI-Cigna, 975 F. 2d 1188 - Court of Appeals, 5th
Circuit 1992; Campbell v. Wilkinson, 988 F. 3d 798 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 2021.
Establishing Rule 41 in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 majority cases. Spencer v. Doe, 139 F. 3d 107 -
Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1998; Colon v. Mack, 56 F. 3d 5 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit
1995; Nasious v. Two Unknown BICE Agents, 492 F. 3d 1158 - Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit
2007; Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F. 3d 72 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1997; Wynder v.
McMahon, 360 F. 3d 73 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2004; Hernandez v. City ofEl Monte,
138 F. 3d 393 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1998; Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F. 3d
837 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2000; Campbell v. Wilkinson, 988 F. 3d 798 - Court of
Appeals, 5th Circuit 2021; Lopez v. Aransas Cty. Independent Sch. Dist., 570 F. 2d 541 - Court of
Appeals, 5th Circuit 1978; Tetro v. Elliott Popham Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick, and GMC Trucks,
173 F. 3d 988 - Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit 1999.
Page 21 of 34
(C)
Is the first and the fourteenth Amendment meaningless in the Constitution
for a Citizen of United States? Chambers v. Sanders, 63 F. 4th 1092 - Court of Appeals, 6th
Circuit 2023; Golden State Transit Corp. v. City ofLos Angeles, 493 U.S. 103, 105 (1989);
Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1, 6-8 (1980).
[SUSAN LARSON CHRISTENSEN, BADDING, RJ., BULLER, J., DANILSON, S.J.
AND SARAH CRANE] acted under color of state law; Hussein S. Yousif is under color. The
act[s] of [SUSAN LARSON CHRISTENSEN, BADDING, RJ., BULLER, I, DANILSON, S.J.
AND SARAH CRANE] deprived the plaintiff of [his] [her] particular rights under [the laws of
the United States] [the United States Constitution] The first Amendment and the fourteenth
Amendment. [SUSAN LARSON CHRISTENSEN, BADDING, RJ., BULLER, J., DANILSON,
S.J. AND SARAH CRANE] acted pursuant to an expressly adopted official policy or a
widespread or longstanding practice or custom of the defendant [SUSAN LARSON
CHRISTENSEN, BADDING, RJ., BULLER, J., AND DANILSON, S.J. ALSO SARAH
CRANE]; and applying logic is the issue with rule 236 with the first Amendment and 14th
amendment.
The defendants [SUSAN LARSON CHRISTENSEN, BADDING, RJ., BULLER, J.,
DANILSON, S.J. AND SARAH CRANE]’s official policy or widespread or longstanding
practice or custom caused the deprivation of the plaintiff’s rights by the [SUSAN LARSON
CHRISTENSEN, BADDING, P.J., BULLER, J., DANILSON, S.J. AND SARAH CRANE; that
is, the [SUSAN LARSON CHRISTENSEN, BADDING, RJ., BULLER, J., AND DANILSON,
S.J. ALSO SARAH CRANE]’s official policy or widespread or longstanding practice or custom
is so closely related to the deprivation of the plaintiff’s rights as to be the moving force that
caused the ultimate injury. The judges violated harming publicly causing harm to Hussein S.
Page 22 of 34
Yousif Constitutional Civil rights Opinion affirmed March 29, 2023. Application forfurther
review on April 17, 2023. Susan Larson Christensen wrote on 05/22/2023, “After consideration
by this court, en banc, further review of the above-captioned case is denied.
A person acts “under color of State law” when the person acts or purports to act in the
performance of official duties under any state, county, or municipal law, ordinance or regulation.
[[The parties have stipulated that] [I instruct you that] [SUSAN LARSON CHRISTENSEN,
BADDING, P.J., BULLER, J., DANILSON, S.J. AND SARAH CRANE] acted under color of
state law.]
“Official policy” means a formal policy, such as a rule or regulation adopted by the
defendant [SUSAN LARSON CHRISTENSEN, BADDING, P.J., BULLER, J., DANILSON,
S.J. AND SARAH CRANE], resulting from a deliberate choice to follow a course of action made
from among various alternatives by the official or officials responsible for establishing final
policy with respect to the subject matter in question.
“Practice or custom” means any longstanding, widespread, or well-settled practice or
custom that constitutes a standard operating procedure of the defendant [SUSAN LARSON
CHRISTENSEN, BADDING, P.J., BULLER, J., DANILSON, S.J. AND SARAH CRANE], [A
practice or custom can be established by repeated constitutional violations that were not properly
investigated and for which the violators] [was] [were] not disciplined, reprimanded or
punished.] The complaint was correct the Judges refused to use logic which results to violation
of Hussein S. Yousif first and 14th Amendment. Monroe v. Pape, 365 US 167 - Supreme Court
1961. Acting under color of state law as required by section 1983 is defined as the '[m] isuse of
power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed
with the authority of state law.
Page 23 of 34
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988). Such actions may result in liability even if the
defendant abuses the position given to him by the state. A private actor may also act under color
of state law under certain circumstances. Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158, 162 (1992)"Title 42 USC §
1983 provides a cause of action against' [e] very person who, under color of any statute of any
State... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen... to the deprivation of any rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws "of the United States.
National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Tarkanian, 488 US 179 - Supreme Court 1988.
(quoting Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 172 (1961) Hussein S. Yousif demonstrate that he
was deprived of rights secured by the United States Constitution or federal statutes.
Jones v. Cummings, 998 F.3d 782, 787-88 (7th Cir. 2021) (noting that absolute immunity
applies to claim that prosecutors filed untimely amendments to criminal charges); Section
1983 provides a remedy for violation federally protected rights by government and its
employees. Civil litigants were still precluded from suing governmental entities themselves
until 1978 when the Supreme Court decided Monell v. New York Department of Social
Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Canton v. Harris, 489 US 378 - Supreme Court 1989. The
government body is 1983 cannot be entitled to an absolute immunity, lest our decision that
such bodies are subject to suit under § 1983 "be drained of meaning," Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416
U. S. 232, 248 (1974).
Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, 397-398 (1971). States and
state agencies are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal court. Edelman v.
Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974). State and regional legislators are absolutely immune, as long as
they are engaged in traditional legislative functions. Local legislators, such as city council
members and county commissioners, have been guaranteed absolute immunity since Bogan v.
Page 24 of 34
Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 118 S. Ct. 966 (1998). Forrester v. White, 484 US 219 - Supreme
Court 1988). The deprivation must be intentional; mere negligence will not suffice to state a
claim for deprivation of a constitutional right under § 1983.
Patterson v. Van Arsdel, 883 F.3d 826, 830- 32 (9th Cir. 2018) (denying absolute
prosecutorial immunity to a county court pretrial release officer on the ground that his acts did
not amount to “advocacy,” over a dissent arguing that the court “should adhere to the long
established rule that once we grant that the function in question is a prosecutorial function, it
does not matter if the person performing that function lacks the title of ‘prosecutor’” and noting
that earlier cases had held similar acts as prosecutorial); id. at 832 (Fernandez, J., dissenting)
(“[W]e should adhere to the long-established rule that once we grant that the function in question
is a prosecutorial function, it does not matter if the person performing that function lacks the title
of ‘prosecutor.’”) “Amendment 1 petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Soranno's
Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F. 2d 1310 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1989).
The fourteenth Amendment Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 US 1 - Supreme Court 1948. Palmore
v. Sidoti, 466 US 429 )- Supreme Court 1984. United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787 - Supreme
Court 1966; Turner v. Impala Motors, 503 F. 2d 607, 609 (1974.) The concept of state action as
required by the Fourteenth Amendment has been found to be virtually synonymous with the
"under color of state law" requirement of § 1983.
Serrano v. Francis, 345 F. 3d 1071, 1075 (2003). “The appeal was ultimately granted.”
(Citing Mack v. Williams, Dist. Court, D. Nevada 2019) "If a genuine issue of material fact exists
that prevents a determination of qualified immunity at summary judgment, the case must proceed
to trial.
Page 25 of 34
Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 US 303 - Supreme Court 1880. The words of the
[Fourteenth] Amendment... contain a necessary implication of a positive immunity, or right, most
valuable to the colored race—the right to exemption from unfriendly legislation against them
distinctively as colored; exemption from legal discriminations, implying inferiority in civil
society, lessening the security of their enjoyment of the rights which others.
Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 US 304 - Supreme Court 1816. Were state courts bound to
follow decisions is-sued by the Supreme Court of the United States? State courts' interpretation
of federal law or the Constitution is reviewable by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Although the construction of the act of March 3, 1875 (18 Stat. 470), under which the removal of
this cause was ordered, has not been judicially settled, the sixth article of the Constitution, which
differs from it only in not limiting the jurisdiction of the surts of the United States to cases of a
civil nature, has been the subject of repeated decisions. Ex parte Young, 209 US 123 - Supreme
Court 1908.
Slaughter-House Cases, 83 US 36 - Supreme Court 1873. The clear and central purpose of
the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial
discrimination in the States. Making the fourteenth Amendment meaningless. John Bingham
purpose of the privilege and immunities clause on fourteenth Amendment is meant for the
Federal Government to enforce Bill of Rights against the state. Roe v. Wade, 410US 113 -
Supreme Court 1973. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479 - Supreme Court 1965. Cox v. Dept.
ofSoc. &Health Servs., 913 F.3d 831, 837 (9th Cir. 2019) (discussing the distinction between
acts for which social services workers receive absolute or qualified immunity). Hardwick v.
County of Orange, Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2020.
Page 26 of 34
Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 US 564 - Supreme Court 1985. Untimely issued. United
States v. GERSKY, Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit 2020 "If the district court's account of the
evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the court of appeals may not
reverse it even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have
weighed the evidence differently.”
Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 US 367 - Supreme Court 1951. (Holding that legislators have
foil immunity from suits under 8 U.S.C. §§ 43 and 47 for acts committed within the scope of
their duties). Harlow, 457 U.S. at 814 (noting the importance of the vindication of
constitutional guarantees, but also the costs attendant to the denial of absolute immunity to
public officers.) Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 183 (1961) (stating that “[i]t is no answer that
the state has a law which if enforced would give relief’ as “[t]he federal remedy is
supplementary to the state remedy”). Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 551-57 (1967) (finding
“administrative” acts to be distinct from judicial decisions.) HIRA EDUC. SERVICES
NORTH AMERICA v. Augustine, 991 F. 3d 180, 190 (3rd Cir. 2021).
Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 372 (1951) (“The privilege of legislators to be free
from arrest or civil process for what they do or say in legislative proceedings has taproots in the
Parliamentary struggles of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries.”) Hustler Mag., Inc. v.
Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 53 (1988) (holding that the first Amendment prohibit public figures and
public officials from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional
distress). Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 125 (1908) (“[A] Federal court may enjoin an individual
or a state officer from enforcing a state statute on account of its unconstitutionality.”)
Pierson v. Ray, 386 US 547 - Supreme Court 1967.) Any argument that Congress could not
impose liability on state judges for the deprivation of civil rights would thus have to be based
Page 27 of 34
upon the claim that doing so would violate the theory of division of powers between the Federal
and State Governments. This claim has been foreclosed by the cases recognizing "that Congress
has the power to enforce provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment against those who carry a
badge of authority of a State.
VI. REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT
U.S. C ONST. art. IV, § 2, cl. 1 (‘‘The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all
Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. ”) The First Amendment Redness
Amdtl.10.2. Fourteenth Amendment Section 1. The state violated the law denyingjurisdiction.
First andfourteenth Amendment first section of the constitution “Section 1 (cont.); Clause in the
original Constitution (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1).
U.S. CONST, amend. XIV (“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ”
Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57, 70 (1981) (“[J]udicial deference to such congressional
exercise of authority is at its apogee when legislative action under the congressional authority to
raise and support armies and make rules and regulations for their governance is challenged.”).
The fourteenth amendment Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 187 (1961); Hirabayashi v.
United States, 320 U.S. 81, (1943); Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 218 (1944); Dred
Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 407 (1857); Tick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886)
(discrimination against Chinese on the West Coast); Ozawa v. United States, 260 U.S. 178 (1922)
the Supreme Court held that Japanese were not 'white' and, accordingly, ineligible for
naturalization.
Page 28 of 34
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 98 (1884); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 653
(1898); Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 554 (1896); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960).
A law may be unconstitutional even if it does not facially discriminate on the basis of race, if it
“uses the racial nature of an issue to define the governmental decision-making structure, and thus
imposes substantial and unique burdens on racial minorities.
Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715, 726 (1961); Peterson v. City of
Greenville, 373 U.S. 244, 248 (1963); Lombard v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 267, 274 (1963); United
States v. Original Knights of Ku Klux Klan, 250 F. Supp. 330 - Dist. Court, ED Louisiana 1965.
Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 931, 942 (1982); Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306
(2003), which upheld a law school’s racially conscious admissions program under strict scrutiny.
Nonetheless, strict scrutiny has remained extraordinarily stringent.
Turner v. Memphis, 369 US 350, 354 (1962) 28 U. S. C. §§ 1254 (1); Anderson v. Martin,
375 U.S. 399, 404 (1964); Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 109, 110 (1945); Patsy v.
Board ofRegents ofFla., 457 U.S. 496 - Supreme Court 1982; Federated Department Stores,
Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U. S. 394, 398 (1981); Dotzel v. Ashbridge, 438 F.3d 320, 324 (3d Cir. 2006);
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau ofNarcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 410 (1971)
(Harlan, J., concurring in the judgment) (“For people in Bivens’ shoes, it is damages or
nothing.”);
Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 187 (1961) (“In the Screws case we dealt with a statute
that imposed criminal penalties for acts ‘wilfully’ done. We construed that word in its setting to
mean the doing of an act with ‘a specific intent to deprive a person of a federal right.’ We do not
think that gloss should be placed on § [1983] which we have here. The word ‘wilfully’ does not
Page 29 of 34
appear in § [1983].” (citation omitted) (quoting Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 103
(1945)).
Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 351-52 (1872); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S.
349, 355 (1978);5m/z v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 512-13 (1978) (“We think that adjudication
within a federal administrative agency shares enough of the characteristics of the judicial process
that those who participate in such adjudication should also be immune from suits for damages.”);
Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554-55 (1967) (“The immunity of judges for acts within the
judicial role is . .. well established, and we presume that Congress would have specifically so
provided had it wished to abolish the doctrine.”)
Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 713-15 (1999), it is worth noting that neither the term
“sovereignty” nor any of its derivatives appear in the U.S. Constitution itself. Chisholm v.
Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 454 (1793) (“To the Constitution of the United States the term
SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown.”). Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499, 505 (2005)
(explaining that race-based classifications are subject to strict judicial scrutiny because “[r]acial
classifications raise special fears that they are motivated by an invidious purpose”). New York
Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964).
Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961) (private discrimination is
not constitutionally forbidden “unless to some significant extent the State in any of its
manifestations has been found to have become involved in it”). Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S.
36, 77 (1872) (stating the “sole purpose” of the Privileges and Immunities Clause is “to declare
to the several States, that whatever those rights, as you grant or establish them to your own
citizens ... the same, neither more nor less, shall be the measure of the rights of citizens of other
States within your jurisdiction”).
Page 30 of 34
Afroyim v. Rusk, y&l U.S. 253, 255-268 (1967); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 399
(1821)); Wabol v. Villacrusis, 958 F.2d 1450, 1460 (9th Cir. 1990); Sessions v. Morales-Santana,
582 US 47 - Supreme Court 2017; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649 - Supreme Court
1898; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 22 US 738 - Supreme Court 1824; Perez v. Brownell, 356
US 44 - Supreme Court 1958.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857) — a case long discredited for its
rejection of the citizenship and personhood of slaves — articulated this under-standing of the
status of territories, as well as Congress’s relationship to them and end goal for them. See id. at
447 (noting that territory “is acquired to become a State, and not to be held as a colony and
governed by Congress with absolute authority”); Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. 211, 222
(2011); New Yorkv. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 149, 174-76 (1992) (involving the federal
commandeering of state legislative functions); Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 925-33
(1997) (involving the federal commandeering of state executive functions).; Puerto Rico v.
Sanchez Valle, 136 S. Ct. 1863 (2016); Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S.
663, 673 (1974))). Cases involving states conflicts issues regarding the civil rights. Logical
invalidity disqualifies the actions of all judges due to Iowa Code 17a.l9(10)(m) and it’s
erroneous. The Supreme court have been recognized as particularly fitting for exercise of the
Court’s authority to grant certiorari under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1254(1) and Supreme Court Rule 10 in
order to obtain definitive resolution by this Court.
CONCLUSION
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.
CAUSES OF ACTION
Page 31 of 34
1. Judges violated Hussein S. Yousif 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Constitutional Civil
rights. 1st petition the government and 14th Amendment constitutional civil
right.
2. Plaintiff suffered economic damages to his credit due to no income. Plaintiff
waited for Iowa workforce development at el to pay plaintiff and it was an
unethical reason for the denial and judges denying his civil right.
3. Plaintiff life was difficult due to no income and the petitioner was forced to
donate plasma to survive in December of 2022 and continuing.
4. Plaintiff Constitutional civil rights are violated and plaintiff seek damages for
years of his life wasted.
DAMAGES
“Prayer for Relief Sought “
WHEREFORE, Hussein S. Yousif seeks damages from State judge and Supreme Court of
Iowa Judges in the amount of the qualified immunity $6,000,000.00. United States Supreme
Courthouse may lower or higher the amount on the Judges.
Date this July 7, 2025.
Respectfully submitted,
By/s/ Hussein S. Yousif
Hussein99Yousif@gmail. com
2506 50th St Des Moines, IA 50310
Cell Phone 515-991-2555
Page 32 of 34
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.