IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
IAMONCANE )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CV-8569
FINAL ORDER
Plaintiff
v.
ROKUTITANITE, in his official capacity as a
Ridgeway State Trooper.
Defendant
FINAL ORDER
On June 30th, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Respondent filed their response on
July 5th, 2026. Petitioner submitted a supplementary brief in reply to Respondent on July 6th, 2026. While
ordinarily there would be no additional supplementary brief, Respondent peculiarly styled their response as a
motion to dismiss. Therefore, the Court shall recognise Petitioner’s reply brief.
I. The purpose of habeas corpus is to challenge the arrest
7 R. Stat. § 133.001 explicitly establishes that the purpose of habeas corpus petitions is to
challenge the arrest itself, not any potential post-arrest deprivation of rights. Any such deprivation
should be pursued through ordinary civil proceedings,
II. Petitioner fails to allege a lack of probable cause
When deciding if a writ of habeas corpus should be granted, this court must first decide
“whether the police were legally entitled to make that arrest.” In Re Zachisbeast, RSC-CV-367. An
officer is entitled to make an arrest when: “the police either had a judicial warrant ordering an arrest, or
the police had probable cause that a crime was committed”. supra. Petitioner submits in their
supplementary brief that this standard is inappropriate, as their petition concerns a post-arrest issue, not
an issue with the validity of the arrest itself. Application of the Zachisbeast standard to a habeas corpus
petition is not inappropriate; rather, habeas corpus proceedings are an inappropriate forum for post-arrest
issues.
Petitioner at no point in their initial petition or their supplemental brief submits that the
Respondent lacked probable cause for Petitioner’s arrest. Therefore, Petitioner has failed to allege any
ground on which the arrest could be challenged on the basis of a lack of probable cause.
III. Petitioner’s argument as to due process is misplaced
Within their supplementary brief, Petitioner cites Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, in support of
their petition, submitting that Petitioner’s right to due process was ignored by depriving him of a
probable cause hearing.
Petitioner has misread the Hamdi case. The issue at stake in Hamdi is whether the submission of
the Mobbs Declaration alone, a declaration by a Defence Department official containing allegations
against Mr. Handi, without providing Mr Hamdi with the opportunity to rebut, provides Mr Hamdi with
adequate opportunity to dispute factual findings, as is required under 28 U.S.C. § 2243. The issue at
stake is whether the lower court proceedings met the requirements outlined by Congress, supra at 525.
The issue in this case is not the sufficiency of any habeas corpus proceedings; Petitioner has been able to
make and respond to factual allegations without hindrance in front of this court. The issue in this case is
the alleged deprivation of a probable cause hearing, which Hamdi does not cover. Ex parte Bollman, 8
U.S. 75 (1803) does not provide any aid to Petitioner’s submissions, and the quote they cited in their
supplementary brief could not be located in the Supreme Court’s opinion by this Court.
CONCLUSION
Petitioner fails to allege any probable cause issue with the Respondent’s arrest. Habeas corpus proceedings are
not the appropriate forum to address any post-arrest due process concerns Petitioner may have. Therefore, the
petition is denied.
DATED this 11th day of July 2026. SO ORDERED,
EffortlessBrit
Superior Court Judge
Ridgeway Superior Court
