SUPERIOR COURT OF RIDGEWAY
ALEXBLUBEAR,
Plaintiff,
v.
RIDGEWAY DEPARTMENT OF STATE;
and AB_BAE, Secretary of State, in her
official capacity,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. RSC-CV-9146
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendants, proceeding by and through the Solicitor General of Ridgeway, respectfully
move this Court to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rid. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(5). Attached hereto is
a memorandum of law supporting dismissal.
Dated: July 31, 2025 Respectfully submitted,
Palmer, Ridgeway.
/s/ BrendaPopplewell
BrendaPopplewell
Solicitor General
EffortlessBrit
Deputy Solicitor General
Ridgeway Department of Justice
1 County Annex
Palmer, Ridgeway 33368
SUPERIOR COURT OF RIDGEWAY
ALEXBLUBEAR,
Plaintiff,
v.
RIDGEWAY DEPARTMENT OF STATE;
and AB_BAE, Secretary of State, in her
official capacity,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. RSC-CV-9146
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
1
INTRODUCTION
On July 27, 2025, the Department of State closed a public chatroom in its Discord server.
Pl’s Comp. at ¶ 1-5. This suit followed. Plaintiff Alexblubear brings claims against the Department
of State and Secretary Ab_Bae under the First Amendment. But the Government’s choice to
create—or later close—an online forum is not implicated by the First Amendment. Indeed, had
the Government never created the chatroom to begin with, surely Plaintiff would not be before this
seeking an order requiring the Government to create a public chatroom.1
Rather, Plaintiff appears to advance a legal theory that—once created—a public forum may
never be closed: It’s a gift that must keep on giving. As that theory defies our Nation’s First
Amendment practice, Plaintiff has not stated a claim under the First Amendment.
LEGAL STANDARD
Pleadings must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief.” See Rid. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Defendants may object to the factual form of such
allegations. Id. at 12(a)(5). To survive a motion to dismiss under 12(a)(5), a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted to be true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
A claim only has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads facts that allow the court to draw a
reasonable inference that defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id.
ARGUMENT
I. Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that “[the Government] shall [not]
1 The Ridgeway State Police, Ridgeway Park Service, and Ridgeway National Guard, among other
Government agencies, do not have public chatrooms in their Discord servers. Alexblubear has not
filed any lawsuit to compel those agencies to create such public forums; and it seems unconvincing
to propose that they, too, violate the First Amendment in having read-only servers.
2
* * * abridg[e] the freedom of speech.” U.S. CONST. amend. I. Thus, in certain forums—including
streets, sidewalks, and other public forums—the People have the right to freely speak and express
their opinions; and to not be treated differently against based on their favorable or unfavorable
viewpoints. Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S. 92, 96 (1972) (holding that
“[the Government] may not grant the use of a forum to people whose views it finds acceptable,
but deny use to those wishing to express less favored or more controversial views.”)
But “[the First Amendment] does not guarantee [Plaintiff] access to property simply
because it is owned or controlled by the government.” United States Postal Service v. Council of
Greenburgh Civic Assns., 453 US 114, 129 (1981). See also Id., at 129-130 (“[t]he [Government],
no less than a private owner of property, has power to preserve the property under its control for
the use to which it is lawfully dedicated.”)2 Moreover, where the Government does open a forum,
it is “not required to indefinitely retain the open character of the [forum].” Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry
Local Educators’ Assn., 460 US 37, 46 (1983) (emphasis added). Thus, Plaintiff’s argument
that Defendants’ decision to close the public chatroom in their Discord server violates the First
Amendment must fail because the Government had no obligation to create the chatroom,
Greenburgh, at 129, nor to retain the open character of the chatroom indefinitely. Perry, at 46.
Furthermore, even if the public chatroom in the Discord server were to be considered a
public forum to which Plaintiff is entitled access—and Defendants reject this position—
Defendants’ decision to close the chatroom survives scrutiny under the First Amendment. Alliance
2 It seems worthy of notation that websites—including Discord servers—owned and controlled by
the Government, is property. See, e.g., Copperhead Agricultural Products, LLC v. KB Ag
Corporation, LLC, No. 4:18-CV-04127-LLP. (D.S.D., December 10, 2019) (“[Defendant's]
website * * * is property”). See also Murphy v. Vosges, LTD, No. 1:22-CV-00066-RAL (W.D. Pa.,
October 24, 2022) (“[Defendant’s] [w]ebsite is property which Defendant must make accessible
to individuals with disabilities under the ADA.”)
3
for Open Society International, Inc., v. Agency for International Development, 651 F. 3d 218, 226
(2d. Cir.2018) (“[L]imitations on speech are permissible if grantees can express their opinions
elsewhere * * *”), aff’d. on other grounds in Agency for International Development v. Alliance for
Open Society International, Inc., 570 U.S. 205 (2013). See also Greenburgh, at 132.3
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should dismiss the Complaint and entitle Defendants
to qualified immunity.
Dated: July 31, 2025 Respectfully submitted,
Palmer, Ridgeway.
/s/ BrendaPopplewell
BrendaPopplewell
Solicitor General
EffortlessBrit
Deputy Solicitor General
Ridgeway Department of Justice
1 County Annex
Palmer, Ridgeway 33368
3 This Court—particularly Judge Notsfeelings—adopted the “adequate alternative channels” test
at the July 29, 2025, hearing. See App. 1, p. 7-8 (“Limitations[—as opposed to bans—]on speech
are acceptable [under the First Amendment].”)
APPENDIX 1
HEARING TRANSCRIPT COVER SHEET
Case name: alexbluebear v. Ridgeway Department of State, ab_bae
Case number: RSC-CV-9146
Date of hearing: July 29, 2025
Type: Temporary Restraining Order Hearing
Date of Transcription: July 30, 2025
PERSONS INVOLVED
Name Role Shorthand
notsfeelings Judge HON FEELINGS
v1oletelo1v Clerk CLERK
alexbluebear Plaintiff PLAINTIFF
SOURCED_V Gallary N/A
Robin5D Gallary N/A
BrendaPopplewell Defendant’s Attorney STATE
TexeoDev Bailiff BAILIFF 1
I certify under the pains and penalties of perjury that the attached transcript is, to the best
of my knowledge, a true and accurate copy of the proceedings which occurred before the Court
as identified above, and that I was personally a witness or reviewed an authentic and untampered
record of that proceeding in preparing this transcript. I have affixed the seal of the Court in
furtherance of this oath.
SWORN:
_______________________________
v1oletelo1v
Deputy Clerk
Dated: July 30, 2025
1
CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
THE COURT WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 23:31 EST
CLERK: We are on the record.
HON FEELINGS: thank you violet
HON FEELINGS: hello!
HON FEELINGS: quick question for you
PLAINTIFF: Yes, your honor.
HON FEELINGS: are you an alternate account
PLAINTIFF: No, your honor.
CLERK: Your Honor, may I swear her in?
HON FEELINGS: why is it that you only have activity on your account during a peak in 2021,
another peak in early 2022, and then nothing until now
PLAINTIFF: Because I take breaks.
SOURCED_V: 3 year breaks?
SOURCED_V: are we serious
HON FEELINGS: okay
SOURCED_V: (am i on the transcript)
HON FEELINGS: why are we here today
SOURCED_V: Err.
SOURCED_V: there’s no transcript here right
PLAINTIFF: I am moving this court to grant a TRO in Alexblubear v. Dept. of State.
PLAINTIFF: I filed the documents previously.
HON FEELINGS: is this filed on the website
PLAINTIFF: Yes, your Honor.
HON FEELINGS: let’s standby for one moment
2
HON FEELINGS: mr. robin
HON FEELINGS: could you do me a favour please sir
HON FEELINGS: with all due haste please attempt to bring forth ms. brenda
HON FEELINGS: so that she may argue in this matter
ROBIN5D: will do
PLAINTIFF: This is an Ex Parte matter.
HON FEELINGS: you just cited the case as alexblubear v. department of state
HON FEELINGS: did you not
PLAINTIFF: Correct.
HON FEELINGS: so how on earth is it ex parte
PLAINTIFF: And the TRO does not need the defendant.
ROBIN5D: actually hold up
ROBIN5D: your honor
PLAINTIFF: As per rule 45a.
HON FEELINGS: and if the defendant can be here then we don’t need it to be a TRO
ROBIN5D: alexblubear is provisionally licensed
ROBIN5D: i do not see a supervisory attorney here
PLAINTIFF: wd
SOURCED_V: robin please refer to dms
PLAINTIFF: It’s pro se.
ROBIN5D: oh nvm
PLAINTIFF: Then the defendants would be waiving service.
HON FEELINGS: seeing as she is here
HON FEELINGS: we shall wait
THE COURT WAS OFF THE RECORD AT 23:36 EST
3
THE COURT WAS ON THE RECORD AT 23:40 EST
HON FEELINGS: okay
HON FEELINGS: ms. popplewell
STATE: hello
HON FEELINGS: we’ll proceed w/ the presentation here
HON FEELINGS: i have pinged you in the chat
HON FEELINGS: there is an application for a TRO here
HON FEELINGS: but you can attend, so we will hear from you as well
STATE: thats fine
HON FEELINGS: god bless
STATE: are we on the record in duty courtroom
HON FEELINGS: ms. bear?
HON FEELINGS: we are not, there is no transcript here
HON FEELINGS: ms. violet is recording
STATE: alr.
PLAINTIFF: Yes, your honor?
HON FEELINGS: please begin
BAILIFF 1: Yes, sir.
PLAINTIFF: I move this court to enjoin the defendants from continuing violating state law and
constitutional rights afforded as put forth in the TRO application.
BAILIFF 1: This is CO working at PPD, requesting a Bailiff DEPUTY to come to PPD for a
court session. Not CO, DEPUTY.
HON FEELINGS: what is that it?
PLAINTIFF: What is what, your Honor?
HON FEELINGS: is that all you have to say?
4
PLAINTIFF: The application is 14 pages long. The Defendants were notified of the violations
of law in a certified letter sent.
HON FEELINGS: certified by who
PLAINTIFF: Myself.
BAILIFF 1: Negative CA31 specifically require a deputy not a CO sadly.
PLAINTIFF: The defendants accepted letter aswell via electronic mail.
BAILIFF 1: Once again, PPD Courtroom session is requesting a DEPUTY a LEO too come to
PPD Courtroom to serve as a Bailiff
PLAINTIFF: And the Defendants were given 24 hours to grant recourse.
PLAINTIFF: They failed to do so, therefore I filed suit.
PLAINTIFF: I set forth the table of authorities and major points in the matter.
HON FEELINGS: and so your claim here, and correct me if im wrong, is
HON FEELINGS: by removing the chatroom channel in the dos sever
HON FEELINGS: that is a violation of your rights?
PLAINTIFF: Yes.
PLAINTIFF: That violates the right to free speech.
HON FEELINGS: can you not speak freely anymore?
BAILIFF 1: Once again, PPD Courtroom session is requesting a DEPUTY a LEO too come to
PPD Courtroom to serve as Bailiff.
HON FEELINGS: thank you sheriff
GALLARY: *in chaos*
HON FEELINGS: order, sit down
PLAINTIFF: The Supreme Court in Lindke v. Freed
PLAINTIFF: held that a public official can not unlawfully prohibit communication.
PLAINTIFF: The action of deleting the channel is a direct violation of that standard because if
public opinion, which is the reason why it was deleted, is blocked
PLAINTIFF: its a direct attack on our constitutional rights.
5
HON FEELINGS: is the dos general-chatroom the penultimate forum of speech?
PLAINTIFF: That doesn’t hold barring-
HON FEELINGS: i am having trouble grasping why one chatroom being missing is somehow
rising to the level that you claim it does
PLAINTIFF: Because its a deprivation of the right.
PLAINTIFF: Regardless if it’s in a useless server.
HON FEELINGS: ms. popplewell on this topic?
STATE: we’re ready to make our statement
STATE: your honor, and may it please the Court
STATE: this case is not about the suppression of speech, nor about the State of Ridgeway
targeting a particular viewpoint.
STATE: it is about a government agency making an operational decision to close a voluntary
online forum that itself created and maintained.
STATE: here, the Secretary did not remove anyone from a continuing discussion because of their
viewpoints. she closed the public channel entirely, ending the forum for everyone,
regardless of what they had to say.
PLAINTIFF: That isn’t what free speech means, but okay.
HON FEELINGS: excuse me
HON FEELINGS: wait your turn
STATE: the First Amendment doesnot guarantee the plaintiff the right to a forum in the DoS’
server.
STATE: the Secretary has discretion to open or close that forum as she pleases, so long as it does
not censor or delete unfavorable viewpoints.
STATE: that is not alleged in this case.
STATE: we would rest for now, unless the Court has any questions
HON FEELINGS: back to ms. bear for a moment please
HON FEELINGS: thank you brenda
6
HON FEELINGS: i need you to connect the dots for me as to why you must chat in *that*
specific channel
PLAINTIFF: Need is not important.
PLAINTIFF: The Department of State, in official action, violated the law.
PLAINTIFF: It doesn’t matter the reason for communication.
PLAINTIFF: What matters is the action in which these government actors took that violated the
law.
HON FEELINGS: so why does the ridgeway general chat not suffice for speech?
PLAINTIFF: It’s an official government server.
PLAINTIFF: Therefore, they are required to allow free speech.
PLAINTIFF: This isn’t a private entity.
PLAINTIFF: Doesn’t matter if its the PPD, Sheriff or DOJ.
HON FEELINGS: if the attorney general was to, say, deny access to a spoken word poet to the
lobby of the doj building
HON FEELINGS: on the basis that he goes into the lobby to speak
HON FEELINGS: and that is, by policy, a quiet area
HON FEELINGS: is that a violation of his rights?
PLAINTIFF: No, the government can limit speech but can not outright BAN speech.
PLAINTIFF: This is the issue in which we are having.
PLAINTIFF: Limitations on speech are acceptable.
HON FEELINGS: have they banned speech?
PLAINTIFF: Yes. In their respective government server.
PLAINTIFF: There is no channel to speak.
PLAINTIFF: Therefore a deprivation of a right.
HON FEELINGS: ms. popplewell on the notion that closing one chatroom is a ban rather than a
limitation on speech, generally?
STATE: could you clarify the question
7
HON FEELINGS: it seems, and alex correct me if im wrong
HON FEELINGS: that the argument here is that closing the chatroom is a ban on speech
HON FEELINGS: but to me, this seems a lot more like a limitation on speech
HON FEELINGS: which, as clarified, is permitted
HON FEELINGS: does the state believe this is a ban or a limit?
STATE: we would believe it is a content-neutral limitation, your honor.
GALLARY: *erupts into chaos as hon. feelings is shot and killed by Canada_doesntExist*
HON FEELINGS (FROM THE GRAVE): contempt for that guy
CLERK: Let the record reflect that Canada_doesntExist has been held in criminal contempt.
THE COURT WAS OFF THE RECORD AT 23:58 EST
THE COURT WAS ON THE RECORD AT 23:59 EST
HON FEELINGS: i am inclined to agree that it is a limitation, not a ban
PLAINTIFF: How so?
PLAINTIFF: That is an outright ban.
HON FEELINGS: you can speak about the state department still
HON FEELINGS: i mean you can say that but i disagree, and im the one with the gavel
PLAINTIFF: I ask for a written order.
HON FEELINGS: you will get one
HON FEELINGS: is there another harm which will be irreversible to you
HON FEELINGS: or is that the only harm
PLAINTIFF: Deprivation of rights is the main harm
HON FEELINGS: as an exploratory exercise, if a TRO/PI was granted
HON FEELINGS: what would you necessarily be looking for it to enjoin>
PLAINTIFF: That is the first page of the application. Its going to censor.
8
HON FEELINGS: so it is, perfect
HON FEELINGS: do you have anything else for me right now
PLAINTIFF: That is all, your Honor.
HON FEELINGS: ms. popplewell?
STATE: that’s very vague, your honor, the state would point out that the 2nd prong is a
follow-the-law injunction which doesn’t really seek to prevent any impending harm.
HON FEELINGS: ok, anything further?
STATE: also, we would raise a motion to dismiss if the TRO is denied.
STATE: we can brief that, if necessary, but we would be fine with an oral disposition.
HON FEELINGS: i’m not going to go further into the pending matter
HON FEELINGS: a judge will be assigned to review
HON FEELINGS: i am only here as this was raised as some kind of emergency matter.
STATE: that’s fine
HON FEELINGS: i’ll issue an order tonight or tomorrow
HON FEELINGS: adjourned
THE COURT WAS ADJOURNED AT 00:05 EST
9
