IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIDGEWAY
FOR THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
HALO4ASIN
Plaintiff,
v.
RIDGEWAY COUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICE;
ERRCORE, in his official capacity;
AZAP634, in his official capacity,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. RSC-CV-5191
Presiding Judge: Hon. Arthur_Chen
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
COMES NOW the Petitioner, Halo4asin, appearing pro se, and petitions this Court for a writ of
mandamus directed to the Respondents. In support, Plaintiff states as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
This Petition seeks to compel the Respondents to perform the clearly written, ministerial duties
that the Administrative Procedure Act of 2026 imposes upon an appointing authority when it
denies an applicant on the basis of a negative background result. The Respondents denied
Petitioner and supplied only a bare statutory citation, refusing to specify the reasoning or identify
the factors relied upon, in defiance of duties the statute states in mandatory terms.
II. STANDARD FOR THE WRIT
Under Article V, Section V of the Constitution of the State of Ridgeway, a writ of mandamus
may issue where the petitioner demonstrates entitlement to relief; where the respondent is
required to execute a clearly written duty; where the relief demonstrated alleviates personal, not
institutional, injury; and where the failure to execute that duty results in personal, concrete, and
particular injury. Each requirement is satisfied here.
III. THE CLEARLY WRITTEN DUTIES
1. Under 4 R. Stat. Section 122.404, where an appointing authority denies an individual on
the basis that the individual’s background investigation has yielded a negative result, it
“shall notify the applicant and specify the reasoning for the negative result.” This duty is
mandatory and ministerial.
2. Under 4 R. Stat. Section 123.501(c), the applicant has the right to a clear and defined
reason for the denial, and under 4 R. Stat. Section 123.501(d), the right to request
information pertaining to the reason for the denial.
3. Under 4 R. Stat. Section 121.103, the appointing authority “shall indicate all attributes of
merit and demerit” relied upon in the vacancy process.
IV. THE FAILURE TO PERFORM
The Respondents published only a bare citation to 4 R. Stat. Section 122.402(a) (Exhibit E).
They specified no reasoning, identified no factors, and provided no clear and defined reason,
even after Petitioner requested that information. Respondent Azap634 admitted that “all but
about two factors were deemed indicative” without ever identifying them (Exhibit H). The duties
unperformed.
V. ENTITLEMENT AND INJURY
Petitioner is entitled to relief because the duties are owed to him as the denied applicant. The
injury is personal, concrete, and particular: Petitioner has been denied appointment as a Deputy
and bears an unexplained and unsupported “alternate account” label, without ever having been
told the reasoning the statute guarantees. The injury is to Petitioner individually, not to any
institution.
VI. RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court issue a writ of mandamus
commanding the Respondents to:
A. Specify, in writing and with particularity, the reasoning for the negative background
result entered against Petitioner, as required by 4 R. Stat. Section 122.404;
B. Identify each specific factor deemed indicative of Petitioner being an alternate account,
and the evidence relied upon for each;
C. Provide Petitioner with a clear and defined written reason for the denial, as required by 4
R. Stat. Section 123.501(c); and
D. Grant such further relief as is just and proper.
Petitioner does not by this Petition seek to compel the exercise of any discretionary act, but only
the performance of the ministerial duties the statute states in mandatory terms.
Respectfully Submitted,
_________________________
/s/ Halo4asin
HALO4ASIN
Plaintiff, Pro Se
Ridgeway State Bar License No. 18110
