IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIDGEWAY
FOR THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
HALO4ASIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
RIDGEWAY PARKS SERVICE,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. RSC-CV-0750
REPLY TO ANSWER AND
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES
Plaintiff Halo4asin, appearing pro se, submits this Reply to Defendant’s Answer and Affirmative
Defenses. To the extent the Ridgeway Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a reply, this filing
is submitted protectively, so that no affirmative defense is deemed admitted and Plaintiff’s
responses are of record. Except as expressly admitted herein, Plaintiff denies each affirmative
defense and every allegation of new matter contained in the Answer.
1. First Defense (Failure to State a Claim - Count II). Denied. Count II states a claim,
and the defense rests on disputed facts - when the denial decision was made, whether the
Superintendent’s June 25 statement was “notice” within 4 R. Stat. § 122.404 or a
disclosure extracted by Plaintiff after repeated pursuit, and whether “an activity strike
within RCFD” specified the reasoning with the particularity the statute requires. Plaintiff
incorporates his concurrently filed Opposition to Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss.
2. Second Defense (No Statutory Damages Remedy). Denied. 7 R. Stat. § 122.003 caps
monetary recovery in proceedings against the government and thereby presupposes that
such recovery exists; the Legislature does not cap remedies that can never be awarded.
Section 122.101 further authorizes “injunctive relief reversing any harm done,” which
reaches make-whole relief where vacatur alone cannot undo harm already suffered. In the
1
alternative, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the prayer. Plaintiff incorporates his
Opposition.
3. Third Defense (Sovereign Immunity). Denied as stated. Defendant concedes that §
122.101 waives immunity for this action. The scope of available remedies within that
waiver is a question for the remedy stage, not a bar to the claims pled.
4. Fourth Defense (Reasonable Good-Faith Reliance on the Record at the Time of
Decision). Denied. The record as it appeared to Defendant at the time of decision
included the “appealed” notations on the issuing department’s own roster, and included
Plaintiff’s direct communication to the Superintendent on June 25, 2026 - with
documentation - that both warnings were appealed, together with Plaintiff’s request that
the denial be reversed or held pending the appeal’s resolution (Exhibit D). Defendant
finalized and published its results after that notice. Reliance is not reasonable, and is not
in good faith, where the decisionmaker is told the asserted basis is inactive and proceeds
anyway. This defense is also irreconcilable with Paragraph 18 of the Answer, which
pleads insufficient knowledge of facts that Defendant’s own exhibit shows were
communicated directly to its Superintendent.
5. Fifth Defense (Warning II as Independent and Sufficient Basis). Denied. The
“completion requirement” Defendant invokes under RCFD Handbook Policy 605-3
governs retraction - the deletion of a warning - not whether a warning is an active adverse
consequence. The issuing department’s General Counsel has certified, in his official
capacity, that both warnings are appealed and inactive and that no adverse action
currently stands against Plaintiff (Exhibit E). Read alongside “terminated,” the phrase
“other adverse consequence” in 4 R. Stat. § 122.402(f) denotes a serious, settled
outcome; an appealed, inactive notation that the issuing department certifies carries no
standing adverse action is not a qualifying criterion within the closed statutory list.
6. Sixth Defense (No Arbitrary Action). Denied. Whatever weighing discretion 4 R. Stat.
§ 121.001 commits to an appointing authority, it does not authorize reliance on a criterion
outside the closed list of § 122.402, and the protection against arbitrary action is a
separate statutory guarantee. Finalizing Plaintiff’s exclusion after documented notice that
the asserted basis was appealed and inactive was arbitrary.
7. Seventh Defense (Statutory Cap on Damages). This defense is pleaded in the
alternative and requires no denial of the existence of a cap; Plaintiff’s own prayer seeks
damages not to exceed the statutory caps. Plaintiff notes that Defendant’s invocation of 7
R. Stat. § 122.006(c) is inconsistent with its Motion’s position on § 122.003, and that a
2
statutory cap on recovery against the government presupposes that such recovery is
available.
8. Eighth Defense (Failure to Mitigate). Denied. Plaintiff escalated the appealed status of
both warnings to Defendant’s Superintendent on June 24-25, 2026, with documentation,
before results were published (Exhibit D); pursued and completed the issuing
department’s appeal mechanisms (Exhibit E and F, including Ticket 72, opened June 15
and resolved June 16); and obtained the “appealed” notations on the roster before
Defendant finalized its results. There was no further step reasonably available to Plaintiff
before publication, and a plaintiff’s duty to mitigate does not excuse a decision the
government made after documented notice.
9. Ninth Defense (Reservation of Rights). No response is required. Plaintiff likewise
reserves the right to respond to any defense later asserted.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court reject each of Defendant’s
affirmative defenses, deny Defendant’s prayer for relief, and grant Plaintiff the relief requested in
the Amended Civil Complaint.
Respectfully Submitted,
_________________________
/s/ Halo4asin
HALO4ASIN
Plaintiff, Pro Se
Ridgeway State Bar License No. 18110
Dated: July 8, 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.
3
_________________________
/s/ Halo4asin
HALO4ASIN
4
