IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIDGEWAY FOR RIDGEWAY COUNTY
__________________________________________
CharlesLXV :
Petitioner :
:
v. : Case No.: RSC-CV-7899
:
RIDGEWAY NATIONAL GUARD :
Respondent :
MOTION TO DISMISS
Respondent, the Ridgeway National Guard, by and through the Department of Justice,
respectfully moves this Court to dismiss the Administrative Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b) of
the Ridgeway Rules of Civil Procedure, and states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
Petitioner challenges an internal investigation and resulting discharge, asserting
violations of procedural due process and statutory requirements. However, Petitioner fails to
establish any legal entitlement to such protections.
Because Petitioner lacks a protected property interest in continued employment, and
because the Complaint otherwise fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,
dismissal is warranted.
NO PROPERTY INTEREST, NO LOUDERMILL
Petitioner’s claims rely entirely on the assertion that he was entitled to procedural due
process protections prior to discipline.
Under Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, due process protections apply only
where a public employee possesses a protected property interest in continued employment.
1
Such an interest must arise from statute, regulation, or contract creating a legitimate
entitlement. Petitioner has identified no such provision under Ridgeway law governing National
Guard service.
Absent a protected property interest, no constitutional due process protections attach, and
Petitioner’s claims fail as a matter of law.
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
Even assuming arguendo that due process protections apply, the Complaint fails to state a
claim.
Petitioner alleges insufficient explanation of evidence, improper investigative procedure,
and failure to disclose certain materials. However, due process requires only notice of the
allegations and an opportunity to respond. It does not mandate exhaustive disclosure, rigid
sequencing of investigations, or full formal hearings at a court-like level.
Petitioner’s allegations, even if accepted as true, do not establish a legal violation.
NO IMPROPER ADJUDICATION OF CRIMINAL GUILT
Petitioner asserts that the investigation improperly determined criminal guilt.
This characterization is incorrect. Internal investigations evaluate compliance with
departmental policy, not criminal liability. The use of legal terminology does not convert
administrative findings into judicial determinations. Further, the OPREG specifically states its
own definition of a crime and does not use any official statute or criminal code thus the claim
that respondent found the Petitioner guilty of a crime is false.
Further, consistent with principles recognized in Garrity v. New Jersey and Kastigar v.
United States, administrative proceedings remain distinct from criminal adjudications.
Petitioner’s claim therefore fails as a matter of law.
NO VIOLATION OF 8 R. STAT. § 2404
2
Petitioner’s statutory claim is similarly deficient.
8 R. Stat. § 2404 requires that an accused be provided sufficient information to
understand the allegations and respond. It does not require disclosure of all underlying materials
or internal investigative processes. Further, the Petitioner was provided with the testimony of the
complainant which is what the statute requires (8 R. Stat. § 2404 “All statements, including the
statements of the complainant notwithstanding any anonymity shall be provided" [emphasis])
Petitioner has not alleged facts demonstrating that he was unable to understand or
respond to the allegations.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, The Honorable dev_Typ, by and through the Department of Justice as
representing the Ridgeway National Guard prays this Honorable Court:
A. Dismiss the Administrative Complaint with prejudice;
B. Find that Petitioner has failed to establish any protected property interest; and
C. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
/s/ dev_Typ
The Honorable dev_Typ, Esq.
D: dev_Typ
3
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
