# 8th Circuit Filing Catalog -- Guertin v. Hennepin County (24-2662)

**Court:** United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
**Case:** 24-2662
**Originating Case:** 0:24-cv-02646-JRT-DLM (D. Minn.)
**Trial Judge:** John R. Tunheim
**Nature of Suit:** 3440 Other Civil Rights
**Filed:** August 16, 2024
**Dismissed:** October 17, 2024 (lack of jurisdiction)
**Mandate Issued:** November 13, 2024
**Total Filings Processed:** 14
**Extraction Date:** 2026-03-21
**Extraction Method:** pdftotext -layout (all 14 files TEXT-OK)
**CourtListener Docket:** 69060054

---

## PARTIES AND REPRESENTATION

### Plaintiff-Appellant
- **Matthew David Guertin** (Pro Se), 1075 Traditions Court, Chaska, MN 55318; Tel: 763-221-4540; Email: mattguertin@protonmail.com

### Defendants-Appellees

#### Hennepin County Group (Hennepin County Attorney's Office)
- **Hennepin County** (municipal entity)
- **Mary Moriarty** (official capacity, Hennepin County Attorney)
- **Chela Guzman-Weigart** (official capacity, Asst. County Administrator for Law, Safety, and Justice)
- **Jacqueline Perez** (official capacity, Asst. Hennepin County Attorney)
- **Bruce Rivers** (individual capacity) -- **NOTE: Default entered at district court level (Doc 52, Aug. 14, 2024). Listed as Defendant-Appellee at 8th Circuit but NO appearance filed, NO counsel entered.**

**Counsel:**
- Jamil M.F. Masroujeh (Lead), Hennepin County Attorney's Office, Government Center C-2000, 300 S. Sixth St., Minneapolis, MN 55487; Tel: 612-596-0683; Email: jamil.masroujeh@hennepin.us
- Matthew L.R. Messerli, Hennepin County Attorney's Office, Civil Division, Government Center A-2000, 300 S. Sixth St., Minneapolis, MN 55487; Tel: 612-348-0727; Email: matthew.messerli@hennepin.us

#### State Defendants (MN Attorney General's Office)
- **Keith M. Ellison** (official capacity, MN Attorney General)
- **Julia Dayton-Kline** (individual capacity, Judge, 4th Judicial District)
- **George F. Borer** (individual capacity, Referee, appointed 2010)
- **Danielle C. Mercurio** (individual capacity, Referee, appointed April 19, 2021)
- **Dr. Jill Rogstad** (official capacity, Senior Clinical Forensic Psychologist, 4th Judicial District)
- **Dr. Adam Milz** (official capacity, Hennepin County Mental Health)

**Counsel:**
- Benjamin William Harringa, Asst. Attorney General, MN AG's Office, Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota St., Suite 1100, Saint Paul, MN 55101-2134; Tel: 651-583-6731; Email: benjamin.harringa@ag.state.mn.us

---

## DOCKET TIMELINE

| Date | Doc # | Filing | Filed By | Key Content |
|------|-------|--------|----------|-------------|
| Aug 16, 2024 | 00 | Pro Se Docketing Letter | Clerk (Gornik) | Case docketed under 24-2662; briefing schedule deferred; appeal referred directly to court |
| Aug 16, 2024 | 01 | Pro Se NDA (Notice of Docket Activity) | Clerk | Electronic notice to Harringa, Masroujeh, Messerli; mail to Guertin |
| Aug 16, 2024 | 02 | Originating Court Document | D. Minn. Clerk | NOA, district court docket entries (60 entries through Aug 15), Memo Opinion & Order 7/16/24 denying TRO |
| Aug 16, 2024 | 03 | Clerk Order -- Electronic Record | Clerk (Gornik) | Court will rely on electronic version of record; Rule 30A appendices not required |
| Aug 16, 2024 | -- | Amended NOA and docket entries | D. Minn. Clerk | Supplemental originating court document |
| Aug 20, 2024 | 05 | Appearance -- Masroujeh | Masroujeh | For Hennepin County, Moriarty, Guzman-Weigart, Perez (Appellees); served Guertin via mail |
| Aug 21, 2024 | 06 | Appearance -- Harringa | Harringa | For Ellison, Dayton-Kline, Borer, Mercurio, Rogstad, Milz (Respondents); served Guertin via mail |
| Aug 22, 2024 | 07 | Motion to Supplement the Record | Guertin | Seeks inclusion of Aug 7, 2024 PI Motion + all exhibits in appellate record |
| Aug 22, 2024 | 08 | Motion for Initial En Banc Review | Guertin | 22-page motion arguing unprecedented nature warrants full-court review |
| Aug 22, 2024 | 09 | Clerk Order -- Motions Taken with Case | Clerk (Gornik) | Both motions ordered taken with case for panel consideration on the merits |
| Oct 17, 2024 | 10 | Dismissal Cover Letter | Clerk (Gornik) | Transmits dispositive order; notes 14-day FRAP 40 rehearing deadline |
| Oct 17, 2024 | 11 | Judgment -- Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction | Panel | **Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Both motions denied.** |
| Nov 13, 2024 | 12 | Mandate Issued | Clerk | Formal mandate issued per FRAP 41(a), effectuating Oct 17 judgment |

---

## SUBSTANTIVE FILINGS

### Doc 02: Originating Court Document

**Filed:** August 16, 2024 | **Content:** District court docket sheet (60 entries), full Memorandum Opinion and Order (Doc 26, 4 pages)

**Transmitted Materials:**
- Civil docket for 0:24-cv-02646-JRT-DLM showing all filings through August 15, 2024
- Party/attorney roster for all 11 defendants
- Judge Bryan recusal order (July 9, reassigned to Tunheim)
- **Memorandum Opinion and Order denying TRO** (the order being appealed)

**Key Docket Events Visible in Transmission:**
- July 8: Complaint filed (Doc 1); TRO Motion filed (Doc 2); summons issued
- July 9: Judge Bryan recusal; reassigned to Tunheim/Micko
- July 12: Service returned executed on all 11 defendants; Exhibits A-N filed
- July 16: TRO denied (Doc 26); Exhibits O-R filed
- Aug 1-2: State Defendants' MTD (Doc 29) and Hennepin County MTD (Doc 35) filed
- Aug 7: PI Motion filed (Doc 42) with Exhibits S-X
- Aug 14: Application for Entry of Default against Rivers (Doc 52); Notice of Interlocutory Appeal (Doc 55, $605 fee)
- Aug 15: Amended NOA (Doc 60); transmittal letter to 8th Circuit (Doc 59)

**Tunheim's TRO Denial (Doc 26) -- Full Analysis:**

The 4-page order was the sole district court ruling under appellate review. Tunheim denied the TRO on Anti-Injunction Act grounds (28 U.S.C. SS 2283), finding:

1. **No express Congressional authorization** to enjoin state criminal proceedings under these circumstances
2. **No aid-to-jurisdiction necessity** -- no facts showing state proceedings impaired federal court's flexibility
3. **No judgment to protect** -- court had issued no judgment yet
4. **Insufficient irreparable harm** -- allegations of constitutional violations alone insufficient; injury is "solely that incidental to every criminal proceeding brought lawfully and in good faith" (citing *Younger v. Harris*, 401 U.S. 37 (1971))
5. **No bad faith prosecution** -- court found "no indication that the prosecution against Guertin has been brought in bad faith"
6. Directed Guertin to raise constitutional challenges in state court

The order cited *Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Eng'rs*, 398 U.S. 281 (1970) and *Younger*. It did not address the merits of Guertin's underlying claims (fraud, discovery manipulation, patent theft). It did not address whether Guertin's situation fell within the Younger bad-faith exception.

---

### Doc 03: Clerk Order -- Electronic Record

**Filed:** August 16, 2024 | **1 page**

Standard procedural order: court will rely on electronic PACER record. Rule 30A appendices waived. District court clerk directed to forward any non-electronic materials (paper filings, sealed documents, exhibits, CDs, videos, administrative records, state court files) within 10 days. Signed by Acting Clerk Maureen W. Gornik under Rule 27A(a).

---

### Doc 05: Appearance -- Masroujeh (Hennepin County Defendants)

**Filed:** August 20, 2024 | **1 page**

Jamil M.F. Masroujeh entered appearance for Appellees Hennepin County, Mary Moriarty, Chela Guzman-Weigart, and Jacqueline Perez. Certificate of service: electronically filed via CM/ECF and mailed to Guertin via First-Class Mail.

---

### Doc 06: Appearance -- Harringa (State Defendants)

**Filed:** August 21, 2024 | **1 page**

Benjamin Harringa entered appearance for Respondents Keith Ellison, Julia Dayton Klein, George Borer, Danielle C. Mercurio, Dr. Jill Rogstad, and Dr. Adam Milz. Certificate of service: electronically filed and mailed to Guertin. Note: Harringa checked "Respondent(s)" rather than "Appellee(s)" on the form -- a minor discrepancy with no legal consequence.

---

### Doc 07: Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal

**Filed:** August 22, 2024 | **10 pages** | **1,043 words** | Verified under penalty of perjury

**What Guertin Sought:** Inclusion of his August 7, 2024 Motion for Preliminary Injunction (district court Doc 42) and all corresponding evidence exhibits (Docs 43-48, Exhibits S-X) in the appellate record.

**Why Not Already in Record:** The PI Motion was filed on August 7, three weeks after the July 16 TRO denial that triggered the appeal. It post-dated the order under review and was not part of the record on appeal.

**Guertin's Arguments:**

1. **Comprehensive re-packaging:** The Aug 7 PI Motion was a "re-packaging of the entire case" with new evidence received July 16, 2024 (the January 2024 Rule 20 exam report from Milz, June 12, 2023 witness statement, and second set of discovery materials from Rivers). Cited *Standard Oil Co. of California v. United States*, 429 U.S. 17 (1976).

2. **Legal standard:** Invoked FRAP 10(e) -- record may be corrected or supplemented if material is omitted by error or accident. Cited *United States v. Henderson*, 3 F.4th 422 (8th Cir. 2021) and *Rouse v. United States*, 14 F.4th 795 (8th Cir. 2021).

3. **Incomplete review without it:** Without the Aug 7 motion, the appellate record would lack the most thorough presentation of the case. Cited *Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co.*, 398 U.S. 144 (1970) and *Schlup v. Delo*, 513 U.S. 298 (1995).

4. **Injunctive relief factors:** The PI Motion establishes likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and balance of equities. Cited *Dylan Brandt v. Leslie Rutledge*, 47 F.4th 661 (8th Cir. 2022); *Sessler v. City of Davenport*, 990 F.3d 1130 (8th Cir. 2021); *State of Missouri v. Biden*, 2024 WL 2756273 (8th Cir. 2024).

**Relief Requested:** (a) Grant supplementation; (b) consider the Aug 7 motion in full; (c) any additional relief deemed just.

**Disposition:** Denied (Oct. 17, 2024, Doc 11).

---

### Doc 08: Motion for Initial En Banc Review

**Filed:** August 22, 2024 | **22 pages** | **3,881 words** | Verified under penalty of perjury

**FULL EXTRACTION -- This filing reveals Guertin's appellate strategy and how he framed his strongest claims for the 8th Circuit.**

**Core Argument:** The case presents "extraordinary and unprecedented circumstances" warranting initial en banc review rather than assignment to a standard 3-judge panel. Guertin argued the issues transcend the immediate parties and implicate systemic concerns.

**Six Grounds Asserted:**

**A. Unprecedented Nature and Public Importance (para. 3-4)**
Involvement of "advanced AI-generated fraudulent discovery materials," collusion between defense counsel, prosecution, and external entities, and theft of a USPTO patent have "broader implications for the integrity of the judicial system and public trust in federal institutions." Cited *En Banc Procedure in the Federal Courts of Appeals*, 111 U. Pa. L. Rev. 220 (1962).

**B. Complex and Novel Legal Issues (para. 5)**
Use of AI in evidence manipulation presents "an entirely new challenge for the courts" requiring full-bench consideration. Argued the case could create inconsistent intra-circuit decisions if left to a panel.

**C. Substantial Financial and Economic Implications (para. 6)**
Estimated value of U.S. Patent No. 11,577,177 "exceeding many billions of dollars over a twenty-year period." Cited *Redefining En Banc Review*, 82 Fordham L. Rev. 2001 (2014).

**D. Integrity of the Judicial System (para. 7-8)**
Allegations of judicial misconduct, fraudulent evidence, and defense counsel conspiracy "strike at the core of the legal process."

**E. Potential to Set Precedent (para. 9)**
Issues concerning AI in legal proceedings, intellectual property protection, and judicial conduct standards could shape future jurisprudence.

**F. Background -- Pattern of Lower Court Failures (para. 11-14)**
MN Court of Appeals (A24-0780) and federal district court "consistently failed to address the substantial evidence." Courts engaged in "a pattern of intentional misrepresentation and containment of the case, focusing on portraying Guertin as mentally incompetent rather than engaging with the irrefutable evidence."

**Substantive Sections:**

**IV. Coordinated Judicial Misconduct (para. 13-14):** Courts systematically ignored patent theft evidence and repackaged the case around incompetency. The July 16 TRO denial "focuses on procedural aspects while completely ignoring the unprecedented nature of the issues."

**V. Fraudulent Discovery Materials (para. 15-20):**
- Jan 5, 2024: Guertin filed first pro se motion requesting original discovery after identifying manipulation in Aug 3, 2023 set from investigator Michael Biglow
- Apr 4, 2024: "Motion to Compel Discovery and Affidavit of Fact" with forensic analysis proving manipulation; ignored by court
- July 16, 2024: Second discovery set received from Rivers; the 28 images Guertin flagged as cropped in Set 1 are all absent from Set 2
- Jan 2024 Rule 20 exam report: Dr. Milz used Guertin's concerns about fraudulent discovery as evidence of psychosis; recommended antipsychotics

**VI. Military and Government Connection (para. 21-25):**
LinkedIn search graph showing pattern of military/government entity searches aligning with key patent events. Entities include DARPA, DIA, INDOPACOM, defense contractors. Provides "post-facto validation" of Rivers' "powerful people" comment.

**VII. Patent Theft (para. 26-28):**
Theft of U.S. Patent 11,577,177 from USPTO. Netflix's U.S. Patent 11,810,254 (granted Nov 7, 2023) lists Guertin's name and patent "at the very top" of References Cited, validating connection.

**VIII. Fraudulent Exam Reports (para. 29-36):**
- False claims of self-harm/suicidal ideation history
- Engineering career dismissed as "grandiose" delusions
- Jan 12, 2023 police report omitted despite being listed as "reviewed material"
- Guertin's candid drug history admission twisted into fabricated substance abuse narrative
- First set of manipulated discovery provided to psychological examiner (identified as "Dr. Michael Robert's" [sic, Robertson]) for civil commitment evaluation

**IX. Defense Counsel Bruce Rivers (para. 37-45):**
- 25-year relationship; retained based on reputation
- Failed to deliver discovery materials and Jan 2024 exam report
- Advised against presenting key evidence at July 7, 2023 hearing
- Ceased communication after Guertin confronted him with forensic evidence of discovery fraud
- Refused to withdraw despite multiple requests and clear conflict
- Pushed for third Rule 20 exam instead of competency hearing
- Court failed to address Guertin's pro se motion for substitute counsel

**Prayer for Relief:** (a) Grant initial en banc review; (b) vacate lower court orders based on fraud/misconduct; (c) remand with instructions to address fraud evidence; (d) order reconsideration of defense counsel; (e) any additional just relief.

**Disposition:** Denied (Oct. 17, 2024, Doc 11).

---

### Doc 09: Clerk Order -- Motions Taken with Case

**Filed:** August 22, 2024 | **1 page**

Both motions (Doc 07 -- Supplement Record, Doc 08 -- En Banc Review) ordered "taken with the case for consideration by the panel to which this case is submitted for disposition on the merits." Entered under Rule 27A(a) by Acting Clerk Gornik.

**Procedural significance:** The motions were not summarily denied. They were deferred for the merits panel to consider alongside the underlying appeal. This meant the panel would evaluate both the jurisdictional question and the motions simultaneously.

---

### Doc 10: Dismissal Cover Letter

**Filed:** October 17, 2024 | **1 page**

Transmittal letter from Acting Clerk Gornik to Guertin enclosing the "dispositive order." Advises:
- FRAP 40 requires any petition for rehearing within 14 days after entry of judgment
- No grace period for mailing for pro se petitions (except per Rule 25(a)(2)(iii))
- A petition for rehearing or motion for extension of time must be filed within the 14-day period

Copied to: Clerk, D. Minn.; Harringa; Masroujeh; Messerli. No petition for rehearing was filed.

---

### Doc 11: Judgment -- Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction

**Filed:** October 17, 2024 | **1 page**

**Panel:** Before SHEPHERD, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

**Full text of dispositive language:**

> "The court has carefully reviewed the original file of the United States District Court and orders that this appeal be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction."
>
> "Appellant's motion for initial en banc review and motion to supplement the record are denied."

**Analysis:**

The judgment is a summary disposition -- no published opinion, no reasoning articulated. The panel:

1. **Dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction** -- The court did not specify the jurisdictional defect, but the basis is almost certainly the absence of a final judgment under 28 U.S.C. SS 1291. At the time of the appeal (August 14-16, 2024), the district court had only denied the TRO (Doc 26, July 16). The two motions to dismiss (Docs 29, 35) were still pending and were not decided until September 30, 2024 (Doc 80). Because the TRO denial was an interlocutory order -- not a final judgment disposing of all claims as to all parties -- the 8th Circuit lacked appellate jurisdiction.

2. **Denied both motions** -- The motion to supplement the record and the motion for initial en banc review were denied without discussion. Since the court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal itself, these motions were necessarily moot.

3. **Did not address the merits** -- The panel said nothing about the substance of Guertin's claims, the TRO denial reasoning, or any of the fraud/misconduct allegations. The dismissal is purely jurisdictional.

4. **No preservation language** -- The judgment contains no express language preserving Guertin's right to re-appeal after a final judgment. However, a jurisdictional dismissal is without prejudice by operation of law -- Guertin retained the right to appeal once the district court entered a final judgment (which occurred Sept. 30, 2024 with the dismissal of the case under Doc 80).

---

### Doc 12: Mandate Issued

**Filed:** November 13, 2024 | **1 page**

"In accordance with the judgment of October 17, 2024, and pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(a), the formal mandate is hereby issued."

**Effect:** The mandate returned jurisdiction to the district court, making the October 17 dismissal final for appellate purposes. The 27-day gap between judgment (Oct 17) and mandate (Nov 13) reflects the standard FRAP 41(a) timeline -- mandate issues 7 days after the 21-day period for filing a petition for rehearing (14 days + 7 days = 21 days; Oct 17 + 27 = Nov 13). Guertin filed no petition for rehearing.

**Practical consequence:** By November 13, the district court case had already been dismissed (Sept. 30, 2024, Doc 80, Younger abstention without prejudice). The mandate's return of jurisdiction was thus largely academic -- the district court had nothing pending.

---

## ANALYTICAL NOTES

### Jurisdictional Issue

The appeal was filed August 14, 2024 (NOA at Doc 55) from the July 16, 2024 TRO denial (Doc 26). At that point, the district court had not yet ruled on:
- State Defendants' MTD (Doc 29, filed Aug 1)
- Hennepin County's MTD (Doc 35, filed Aug 2)
- Guertin's PI Motion (Doc 42, filed Aug 7)
- Application for Entry of Default against Rivers (Doc 52, filed Aug 14)

The appeal was interlocutory -- there was no final judgment under 28 U.S.C. SS 1291. A TRO denial is generally not an appealable final order. While some interlocutory orders are immediately appealable (28 U.S.C. SS 1292(a)(1) covers injunctions), TRO denials are typically reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard only when consolidated with a preliminary injunction denial. Here, the district court had not yet ruled on the PI motion.

Guertin styled his NOA as a "Notice of Interlocutory Appeal" (Doc 55), suggesting awareness that this was not a final judgment. However, 28 U.S.C. SS 1292(a)(1) authorizes interlocutory appeals from orders "granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions." The TRO denial could potentially fall within this provision, but courts in the 8th Circuit have generally held that TRO denials are not immediately appealable unless the TRO effectively has the character of a preliminary injunction. The panel's summary dismissal "for lack of jurisdiction" without further explanation is consistent with this approach.

### Rivers Default Anomaly

Bruce Rivers had default entered against him at the district court level (Doc 52, filed August 14, 2024 -- the same day as the NOA). At the 8th Circuit:
- Rivers was listed as a Defendant-Appellee on the docket
- **No appearance was filed** on his behalf -- neither Masroujeh nor Harringa represented him
- No attorney entered for Rivers at any point during the appellate proceedings
- The CourtListener parties page confirms Rivers appears without counsel ("REPRESENTED BY" section is blank for Rivers)

This is an anomaly but not unusual for a defaulted party. A defendant in default has no obligation to participate in an appeal initiated by the plaintiff. The default itself would be addressed at the district court level. When the district court later dismissed the entire case on September 30, 2024, the default against Rivers became moot.

### Connection to 25-2476

This case (24-2662) was the first of two 8th Circuit appeals filed by Guertin:

| Case | Originating Case | Filed | Outcome |
|------|-----------------|-------|---------|
| **24-2662** | Guertin v. Hennepin County, 0:24-cv-02646-JRT-DLM | Aug 16, 2024 | Dismissed Oct 17, 2024 (lack of jurisdiction) |
| **25-2476** | Guertin v. Walz, 0:25-cv-02670-PAM-DLM | Filed after July 24, 2025 filing restriction | Separate proceedings |

The two cases arise from different district court proceedings. 24-2662 challenged the TRO denial in the original civil rights action against Hennepin County defendants and state officials. 25-2476 arose from the later Guertin v. Walz action (filed June 25, 2025, dismissed July 10, 2025 by Judge Magnuson), which named Governor Walz and AG Ellison and asserted RICO claims. Content from 25-2476 is not extracted here -- it is a separate appellate proceeding.

### Temporal Context

Key timeline showing 24-2662 in relation to the district court case:

| Date | Event |
|------|-------|
| Jul 8, 2024 | Complaint + TRO Motion filed in D. Minn. |
| Jul 9, 2024 | Judge Bryan recusal; reassigned to Tunheim |
| Jul 16, 2024 | **TRO denied** (Doc 26) -- the order under appeal |
| Aug 1-2, 2024 | Both MTDs filed in D. Minn. |
| Aug 7, 2024 | PI Motion filed in D. Minn. |
| Aug 14, 2024 | NOA filed; default application against Rivers |
| Aug 16, 2024 | **24-2662 docketed at 8th Circuit** |
| Aug 22, 2024 | Both motions filed and taken with case |
| Sep 30, 2024 | D. Minn. dismisses entire case (Doc 80, Younger abstention, without prejudice) |
| Oct 17, 2024 | **24-2662 dismissed for lack of jurisdiction** |
| Nov 13, 2024 | Mandate issued |

The district court case was dismissed while the appeal was pending. The dismissal of the appeal on October 17 came 17 days after the September 30 district court dismissal. Even if the 8th Circuit had found jurisdiction, the appeal would likely have been dismissed as moot given the intervening district court dismissal of the entire case.

---

## MASTER FILING INDEX

| Doc # | Date | Title | Filed By | Pages | Type |
|-------|------|-------|----------|-------|------|
| 00 | Aug 16, 2024 | Pro Se Docketing Letter | Clerk (Gornik) | 4 | Procedural |
| 01 | Aug 16, 2024 | Pro Se NDA | Clerk | 1 | Procedural |
| 02 | Aug 16, 2024 | Originating Court Document (NOA, docket, Memo Opinion 7/16/24) | D. Minn. Clerk | 14 | Record |
| 03 | Aug 16, 2024 | Clerk Order -- Electronic Record | Clerk (Gornik) | 1 | Procedural |
| 05 | Aug 20, 2024 | Appearance -- Masroujeh | Masroujeh | 1 | Procedural |
| 06 | Aug 21, 2024 | Appearance -- Harringa | Harringa | 1 | Procedural |
| 07 | Aug 22, 2024 | Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal | Guertin | 10 | Motion |
| 08 | Aug 22, 2024 | Motion for Initial En Banc Review | Guertin | 22 | Motion |
| 09 | Aug 22, 2024 | Clerk Order -- Motions Taken with Case | Clerk (Gornik) | 1 | Procedural |
| 10 | Oct 17, 2024 | Dismissal Cover Letter | Clerk (Gornik) | 1 | Procedural |
| 11 | Oct 17, 2024 | Judgment -- Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction | Panel (Shepherd, Erickson, Stras) | 1 | Disposition |
| 12 | Nov 13, 2024 | Mandate Issued | Clerk | 1 | Procedural |
| CL-D | Sep 23, 2024 | CourtListener Docket Printout | CourtListener | 2 | Reference |
| CL-P | Sep 23, 2024 | CourtListener Parties Printout | CourtListener | 3 | Reference |

**Note on numbering:** There is no Doc 04 in the docket. Doc numbers 00-01 are the clerk's docketing letter and NDA. The CourtListener printouts were captured September 23, 2024 (before the October 17 dismissal) and reflect docket entries through August 22, 2024.

---

## EXTRACTION STATUS LOG

| File | Method | Status | Notes |
|------|--------|--------|-------|
| 00__Pro Se Docketing Letter__2024-08-16.pdf | pdftotext -layout | TEXT-OK | 121 lines, clean extraction |
| 01__Pro Se NDA__2024-08-16.pdf | pdftotext -layout | TEXT-OK | 30 lines |
| 02__Originating-court-document...7-16-24.pdf | pdftotext -layout | TEXT-OK | 697 lines (docket + Memo Opinion) |
| 03__CLERK-ORDER...electronic-version.pdf | pdftotext -layout | TEXT-OK | 50 lines |
| 05__APPEARANCE...Masroujeh.pdf | pdftotext -layout | TEXT-OK | 50 lines |
| 06__APPEARANCE...Harringa.pdf | pdftotext -layout | TEXT-OK | 51 lines |
| 07__Appellants-MOTION-to-supplement-the-record.pdf | pdftotext -layout | TEXT-OK | 375 lines |
| 08__APPELLANTS-MOTION-FOR-INITIAL-EN-BANC-REVIEW.pdf | pdftotext -layout | TEXT-OK | 963 lines (4 annotation warnings, non-fatal) |
| 09__CLERK-ORDER...taken-with-the-case.pdf | pdftotext -layout | TEXT-OK | 40 lines |
| 10__Case Dismissed...Cover-Letter.pdf | pdftotext -layout | TEXT-OK | 44 lines |
| 11__Case Dismissed...Judgement.pdf | pdftotext -layout | TEXT-OK | 50 lines |
| 12__MANDATE ISSUED_2024-11-13.pdf | pdftotext -layout | TEXT-OK | 36 lines |
| Matthew Guertin v. Hennepin County...CourtListener.pdf | pdftotext -layout | TEXT-OK | 156 lines |
| Parties for Matthew Guertin...CourtListener.pdf | pdftotext -layout | TEXT-OK | 227 lines |