THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
RIDGEWAY SUPERIOR COURT
JAMESGARDAI,
-against-
RIDGEWAY NATIONAL GUARD
Defendant.
Case No. RSC-CV-7404
RESPONSE
Presiding Judge: Arthur_Chen
Respondent, the Ridgeway National Guard, by and through the Department of Justice,
respectfully moves this Court to dismiss the Administrative Complaint pursuant to the Ridgeway
Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rule 12(b), and states as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
This case arises from Petitioner’s termination pursuant to 2 R. Stat. § 3324, which expressly
permits at-will termination and explicitly bars judicial review of such actions. Despite this clear
statutory directive, Petitioner seeks review of a non-reviewable administrative action.
Because the Court lacks jurisdiction and Petitioner fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, dismissal is required as a matter of law.
II. THE COURT LACKS SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION
Under 2 R. Stat. § 3324, at-will terminations “may not be reviewed by any court.”
Petitioner concedes that his termination was carried out pursuant to § 3324. Accordingly, the
statute divests this Court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of this claim.
Administrative courts may only exercise jurisdiction where review is permitted by law. Where
the Legislature has expressly prohibited review, the Court must dismiss the action.
III. FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
Even if jurisdiction were proper, the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
Petitioner’s claims rely on the premise that he was entitled to:
● Notice of termination;
● A statement of reasons;
● An opportunity to be heard.
However, no such requirements exist for an at-will honorable discharge under 2 R. Stat. § 3324.
Because the governing statute authorizes termination “at any time” and “for any reason not
prohibited by law,” Petitioner cannot establish any legal violation.
IV. NO PROTECTED PROPERTY INTEREST EXISTS
Petitioner asserts a constitutional property interest in continued employment. This claim fails as a
matter of law.
A property interest must be grounded in statute, regulation, or contract. Here, the governing
statute expressly establishes at-will employment, which negates any claim of entitlement to
continued service.
Absent a protected property interest, Petitioner’s due process claims necessarily fail.
V. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT DOES NOT APPLY
The Ridgeway Administrative Procedure Act governs disciplinary actions such as involuntary
general discharge or dishonorable discharge.
Petitioner was not subject to a disciplinary discharge. Instead, he was terminated under an at-will
provision.
Accordingly, procedural protections such as investigation, notice, or hearing are not required and
do not apply in this case.
VI. CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that this Court:
1. Dismiss the Administrative Complaint with prejudice;
2. Find that 2 R. Stat. § 3324 bars judicial review of the claim; and
3. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
Department of Justice
Counsel for Ridgeway National Guard
DATED: APRIL 20th, 2026
Respectfully submitted,
THE HONORABLE dev_Typ, Esq.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
/s/ dev_Typ
