IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIDGEWAY FOR RIDGEWAY COUNTY
__________________________________________
CharlesLXV :
Petitioner :
:
v. : Case No.: RSC-CV-7899
:
RIDGEWAY NATIONAL GUARD :
Respondent :
RESPONSE TO ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT
dev_Typ, the Ridgeway National Guard, by and through the Department of Justice, answers the
Administrative Complaint pursuant to the Ridgeway Rules of Civil Procedure as follows:
1. Admitted that Petitioner was employed as a Private in the 301st Infantry Brigade.
2. Admitted that a complaint was received regarding Petitioner’s on-duty conduct.
3. Admitted that Petitioner was interviewed by the Military Police Investigations Unit.
4. Admitted that alleged violations of OPREG 3002 and OPREG 1005 were cited.
5. Admitted that video evidence and a complainant statement were considered; denied that
such evidence was insufficient.
6. Admitted that Petitioner was questioned regarding the incident; denied that this was his
only opportunity to respond or that such opportunity was legally insufficient.
7.
RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S INTRODUCTION AND ARGUMENT
To the extent the Introduction and Argument sections contain legal conclusions, Respondent
denies all allegations inconsistent with the express terms of 2 R. Stat. § 3324 and applicable law.
Specifically, the respondent denies:
I. NO PROPERTY INTEREST, NO LOUDERMILL
1
A. Petitioner’s reliance on Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill is misplaced.
B. Loudermill applies only where a public employee possesses a protected property
interest in continued employment. Petitioner has failed to identify any statute,
regulation, or contract creating such an entitlement within the Ridgeway National
Guard.
C. Absent a protected property interest, no constitutional due process protections
attach, and Petitioner’s procedural claims fail as a matter of law.
II. THE INVESTIGATION WAS PROCEDURALLY SUFFICIENT
A. Even assuming arguendo that due process protections apply, the investigation
satisfied all required standards.
B. Petitioner was informed of the allegations, presented with evidence; and provided
an opportunity to respond.
C. Due process does not require a rigid sequencing of investigatory steps, nor does it
require that all factual determinations be finalized prior to employee questioning.
D. Respondent further denies any reliance on non-binding or non-controlling
authorities, including decisions from jurisdictions outside Ridgeway or the United
States.
III. THE INVESTIGATION DID NOT IMPROPERLY ADJUDICATE CRIMINAL
GUILT
A. Petitioner’s assertion that the Military Police Investigations Unit “usurped”
judicial authority mischaracterizes the nature of the investigation.
B. Internal affairs investigations evaluate whether conduct violates departmental
policy. Any reference to legal terminology does not convert such findings into
binding criminal adjudications.
1. Further, the violation of 3002 was specific to a violation of policy not
violation of law. No where was the Petitioner declared guilty of a crime,
rather guilty of a violation of departmental policy and procedure
C. Consistent with principles recognized in Garrity v. New Jersey and Kastigar v.
United States, administrative investigations and criminal proceedings serve
distinct functions. The investigation here remained administrative in nature and
within the Department’s authority.
2
IV. NO VIOLATION OF 8 R. STAT. § 2404 OCCURRED
A. Petitioner’s claim that he was not provided the complainant’s statements is
unsupported.
1. Petitioner was given evidence of the formal testimony of the Complainant
which is what the law requires (see appendix of evidence Exhibit A)
B. 8 R. Stat. § 2404 requires that an accused be provided complainant testimony
which was what the petitioner was provided with.
C. Petitioner was informed of the nature of the complaint and given an opportunity
to respond. No prejudice has been shown.
V. THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED WAS SUFFICIENT
A. Petitioner’s assertion that the evidence was not adequately explained is without
merit.
B. Due process requires an explanation sufficient to permit a response, not a formal
hearing. The evidence provided, including video and complainant statements, was
sufficient to inform Petitioner of the allegations.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
I. Petitioner’s Failure to State A Claim
A. Petitioner fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The termination
was lawful under governing statute, and no procedural protections are required for
at-will separation.
II. No Protected Property Interest
A. Petitioner has no protected property interest in continued employment. Under
Bishop v. Wood, “a property interest in employment can, of course, be created by
ordinance, or by an implied contract,” but where no such entitlement exists under
state law, no property interest is present (Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341, 344
(1976). Here, 2 R. Stat. § 3324 establishes at-will employment, foreclosing any
such entitlement.
III. Harmless Error
A. Any alleged procedural irregularity, if it occurred, was harmless and did not
prejudice Petitioner.
3
IV. Lawful Exercise of Authority
A. Respondent acted within its lawful authority in investigating and disciplining
Petitioner.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, The Honorable dev_Typ, by and through the Department of Justice as
representing the Ridgeway Department of Transportion prays this Honorable Court:
A. Deny the Administrative Complaint in its entirety;
B. Uphold the involuntary general discharge; and
C. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
/s/ dev_Typ
The Honorable dev_Typ, Esq.
D: dev_Typ
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this , a copy of the foregoing motion was Apr 23, 2026
submitted to opposing counsel via electronic submission.
/s/ dev_Typ
4
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Exhibit A -
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jKs5SYfqO9QpW0dihZEx-oT4AdGe1J32/view
5
