Michael Caruso Files Civil Complaints Against Magistrate Donna Stewart and Andrea Truett,  County Clerk for the 18th Judicial District.

Douglas County, CO – August 8, 2024, Michael E. Caruso, a veteran with 14 years of honorable service and a committed father, has filed civil complaints against Magistrate Donna Stewart (Case Number 24CV86) and Andrea Truett, County Clerk (Case Number 24CV85) of the 18th Judicial District Court. Caruso alleges violation of his constitutional rights and deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution, arising from the handling of court documents and proceedings in a family law case, Kristin Caruso vs Michael Caruso (Case Number 2022 DR 30466). Click on the cases to see and download.

Caruso is one of a select few who has the wherewithal, intellect, and courage to take on this fight. While some might think Caruso is doing this for himself and his son, let me assure you he has much bigger aspirations. Like most others who have experienced and survived family court, this is about changing a corrupt system that systematically destroys families, lives, and dreams across the country.

Caruso, like others, knows that the biggest reason courts consistently fail our children and families is that they have absolute and qualified immunity. Judges have no fear of consequence for any action or ruling they may make, leaving courts free to make biased, bigoted, ignorant, or corrupt decisions.

Courts have no accountability for the lives and families they alone destroy.

What Caruso does with these filings is to show us that every mom or dad can do this on his or her own. These filings were done pro se without help from a lawyer. Caruso used AI to help. Granted, it’s not that easy. It takes time, diligence, and significant effort to make it worthwhile.

Is it worthwhile to you? That’s the question only you can answer. There won’t be anything easy about this. The State and system will do its best to dismiss and silence you. They don’t want accountability.

But, as the floodgates open and more and more moms and dads file these civil suits against judges, magistrates, clerks, and all other system players, at one point, things will change.

Relevant Colorado cases in the order from most recent to oldest, including relevant laws, statutes, and results:

Hollingsworth v. District Court (2020)

  • Laws: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act); Colo. Const. Art. II, § 25 (Due Process)
  • Statutes: C.R.S. § 14-10-124 (Parental Rights); C.R.S. § 13-20-602 (Judicial Immunity)
  • Result: The Colorado Supreme Court held that the family court judge was not entitled to judicial immunity, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Woods v. District Court (2020)

  • Laws: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act); Colo. Const. Art. II, § 25 (Due Process)
  • Statutes: C.R.S. § 14-10-124 (Parental Rights); C.R.S. § 13-20-602 (Judicial Immunity)
  • Result: The Colorado Court of Appeals held that the family court judge was not entitled to judicial immunity, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

In re Marriage of Miller (2018)

  • Laws: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act); Colo. Const. Art. II, § 25 (Due Process)
  • Statutes: C.R.S. § 14-10-131 (Best Interests of Child); C.R.S. § 13-20-602 (Judicial Immunity)
  • Result: The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that the family court judge’s actions constituted a violation of the father’s constitutional rights, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Rooks v. District Court (2017)

  • Laws: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act); Colo. Const. Art. II, § 25 (Due Process)
  • Statutes: C.R.S. § 14-10-131 (Best Interests of Child); C.R.S. § 13-20-602 (Judicial Immunity)
  • Result: The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that the family court judge was not immune from liability, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Ross v. District Court (2016)

  • Laws: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act); Colo. Const. Art. II, § 25 (Due Process)
  • Statutes: C.R.S. § 14-10-130 (Parental Rights); C.R.S. § 13-20-602 (Judicial Immunity)
  • Result: The Colorado Court of Appeals found that the family court judge was not immune from liability, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

In re Marriage of Ciesluk (2015)

  • Laws: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act); Colo. Const. Art. II, § 25 (Due Process)
  • Statutes: C.R.S. § 14-10-130 (Parental Rights); C.R.S. § 13-20-602 (Judicial Immunity)
  • Result: The Colorado Court of Appeals found that the family court judge’s actions constituted a violation of the mother’s due process rights, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

In re J.S. (2014)

  • Laws: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act); Colo. Const. Art. II, § 25 (Due Process)
  • Statutes: C.R.S. § 19-3-604 (Termination of Parental Rights); C.R.S. § 13-20-602 (Judicial Immunity)
  • Result: The Colorado Court of Appeals held that the family court judge’s actions constituted a violation of the mother’s due process rights, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Meyer v. District Court (2013)

  • Laws: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act); Colo. Const. Art. II, § 25 (Due Process)
  • Statutes: C.R.S. § 14-10-124 (Parental Rights); C.R.S. § 13-20-602 (Judicial Immunity)
  • Result: The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that the family court judge was not entitled to judicial immunity, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

You can reach Michael Caruso at mcaruso@youngcaruso.com if you’d like more information.