IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIDGEWAY
FOR THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
HALO4ASIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
RIDGEWAY PARKS SERVICE,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. RSC-CV-0750
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR
PARTICULARS
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR PARTICULARS
Plaintiff Halo4asin, appearing pro se, responds to the particulars requested by counsel for the
Defendant on July 4, 2026, as follows. Exhibit references are to the Exhibits filed in support of
the Amended Civil Complaint.
1. Earliest date Plaintiff was aware his background check was denied.
On or about June 23-24, 2026, Plaintiff was informed through the Defendant’s Chief Ranger that
hsi application was “being denied for previous adverse action.” The Superintendent of the Parks
Service confirmed the specific basis on June 25, 2026, at approximately 1:12 AM: “So, at the
time of reviewing your BGC, it was found that you had an activity strike within RCFD.” (Exhibit
D.) The denial became final on June 29, 2026, when the Defendant published its Ranger Class 22
acceptance results excluding Plaintiff.
2. Earliest date Plaintiff was told the erroneously issued RCFD warning was removed
from RCFD’s records.
Plaintiff was told of the removal’s completion on June 30, 2026, at approximately 10:45 PM,
when RCFD’s General Counsel confirmed in writing that “your first activity warning issued in
error on June 8, 2026, has been removed from your discipline record.” (Exhibit E.) Prior to
completion of the removal: on our about June 25, 2026, RCFD’s Fire Chief acknowledged the
1
warning resulted from a logging-bot (ridgelog) error and stated he would “correct the record and
remove the log in regard to the error of the bot” upon the General Counsel’s concurrence, and
further stated that Plaintiff’s “record is listed as clean.” On June 29, 2026, the General Counsel
affirmed in his official capacity that the warning “was issued by clerical error” and “will be
removed,” that both warnings “are appealed and inactive” under Handbook Policy 605-3, and
that “no adverse action currently stands against Plaintiff.” (Exhibit E.)
3. Whether Plaintiff contends the RCFD warning was removed prior to the
background check.
No. Plaintiff does not contend the erroneous warning had been deleted from RCFD’s records
before the Defendant reviewed his background. Plaintiff’s contention is different, and it is the
basis of the Amended Complaint: at all times relevant to the Defendant’s review and through the
publication of the Class 22 results, both warnings were appealed and inactive - not valid, active
adverse consequences within the meaning of 4 R. Stat. § 122.402(f). Both warnings were
appealed promptly upon eligibility and were reflected as appealed on RCFD’s roster before the
Defendant’s results were published. Plaintiff communicated the appealed status, with
documentation, to the Defendant’s Superintendent on June 25, 2026 - three days before the
Defendant finalized its results - and requested that the denial be reversed or held pending the
appeal’s resolution. (Exhibit D.) The Defendant published its results excluding Plaintiff
notwithstanding that notice. The issuing department has since confirmed in writing that one
warning was a clerical error (now removed) and that no adverse action currently stands against
Plaintiff. (Exhibit E.)
Plaintiff remains available to provide any further particulars the Defendant requires.
Respectfully Submitted,
_________________________
/s/ Halo4asin
HALO4ASIN
Plaintiff, Pro Se
Ridgeway State Bar License No. 18110
2
Dated: July 4, 2026
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on July 4, 2026, I served a true copy of the foregoing on counsel for the Defendant
via the Court’s e-filing system and the case channel.
_________________________
/s/ Halo4asin
HALO4ASIN
3
