IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
thr33six8
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CV-1373
Plaintiff
v.
RichardLennox
Defendants
MOTION TO STRIKE
Under Rid. R. Civ. Pro. 12(c), Plaintiff thr33six8 moves to strike Defendant's affirmative defense of
qualified immunity as it is insufficient.
REASONS FOR MOTION
IMPROPER APPLICATION OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY UNDER STATE STATUATORY LAW
Defendant states for qualified immunity:
"Defendant acted in good faith in the discharge of his duties as Chief of Police. To the extent
qualified immunity or good faith immunity is available to law enforcement officers under
Ridgeway law, Defendant asserts such protection, as his conduct did not violate any clearly
established right that a reasonable officer would have known at the time."
There is no statute that gives Defendant qualified immunity or "good faith" immunity in the State of
Ridgeway unless Defendant is the Solicitor General who refuses to defend an agent of the government pursuant
to 1 R. Stat. § 3210. In that case, that is qualified immunity.
IMPROPER APPLICATION OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY UNDER COMMON LAW
Defendant states for qualified immunity:
"Defendant acted in good faith in the discharge of his duties as Chief of Police. To the extent
qualified immunity or good faith immunity is available to law enforcement officers under
Ridgeway law, Defendant asserts such protection, as his conduct did not violate any clearly
established right that a reasonable officer would have known at the time."
The doctrine of qualified immunity, which is an affirmative defense, applies to a case where (1) the facts
alledged show that the tortfeasor's misconduct violated a right, and (2) said right was clearly established at the
time of the tortfeasor's tortious actions. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009). Pp. 223-224.
Plaintiff has a federal constitutional right to be free from deprivation of life under U.S. Const. amend.
ⅩⅣ § 1. Plaintiff also has a state constitutional right "to be protected in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and
property" from R. Const. Art. Ⅰ § Ⅴ. Finally, Plaintiff has a right to be secure from unreasonable searches and
seizures under U.S. Const. amend. Ⅳ. That is a total of three rights.
As for the satisifaction of the first prong of piercing the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, since
killings/"apprehension[s] by the use of deadly force" are seizures, Defendant did seize Plaintiff when Defendant
killed Plaintiff. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). Pp. 2. "[Lethal] force may not be used unless necessary
to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of
death or serious physical injury to the officer or others." Id. at Pp. 1.
Plaintiff was fleeing from Defendant for crime(s) that has/have not been disclosed by the defense, but
Plaintiff was not posing "a significant threat of death or serious physical injury" because there were no facts or
evidence that pointed to the existence of such a threat; Plaintiff only committed nonviolent crimes at the time of
misconduct.
Open carry is not illegal in the State of Ridgeway, so that Plaintiff's firearm was this "significant threat
of death or serious physical injury" cannot be probable cause of such threat.
Having boxes of police-issued .45 ACP without authorization is the felony of Unlawful Posession of
Government-Issued Equipment under R.S.C.C. § 5.08, picking up evidence on an active crime scene is the
misdemeanor of Evidence Theft under R.S.C.C. § 4.09, and having a Solami is the misdemeanor of Unlawful
Posession of a Firearm under R.S.C.C. § 5.01.
All of these are not violent crimes, and these are the crimes that Defendant could have had probable
cause for. Since Plaintiff did not commit any violent crime and therefore did not pose "a significant threat of
death or serious injury", this prong has been met.
As for the satisifaction of the second prong of piercing the affirmative defense of qualified immunity,
all three rights are constiutional and therefore established via statute, so they are clearly established. At the time
of misconduct, Defendant did know these rights.
Since qualified immunity has been piereced, Defendant's affirmative defense of qualified immunity does
not apply, and it is therefore insufficient under Rid. R. Civ. Pro. 12(c).
Respectfully Submitted,
Plaintiff thr33six8
/s/ thr33six8
