IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIDGEWAY
FOR THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
HALO4ASIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
RIDGEWAY COUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICE,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. RSC-CV-5191
MOTION
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF A SCHEDULING ORDER AND FOR
RULING ON PENDING, UNOPPOSED DISCOVERY MOTIONS
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Halo4asin, pro se, and, in response to the Court’s inquiry as to the
next issues following its Minute Order of July 12, 2026, respectfully moves for entry of a
scheduling order and for a ruling on Plaintiff’s pending, unopposed discovery motions, stating as
follows:
I. POSTURE
1. By Minute Order dated July 12, 2026, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment, observing that the material facts are largely undisputed, identifying unresolved
questions of statutory interpretation concerning the notice requirements of 4 R. Stat.
Sections 122.308 and 122.404, and finding genuine issues of material fact on Plaintiff’s
claims of biased review, retaliation, and arbitrary action. The Order provides that the
matter shall proceed to trial or such further proceedings as may resolve the remaining
legal issues.
II. POSTURE
2. RULING ON PENDING DISCOVERY MOTIONS. Plaintiff requests that the Court
grant, or set for prompt ruling, Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery and Subpoena Duces
Tecum (Doc 07) and Motion for Subpoena Ad Testificandum (Doc 08), each of which has
1
been pending and unopposed since filing. The Court’s finding of genuine fact disputes on
bias, retaliation, and arbitrariness makes the discovery those motions seek necessary to
any trial of those claims, including, among other things, the identity of the initial
reviewing detective, the specific factors deemed indicative under Section 122.402(a), the
application tracker and related audit records, internal communications concerning
Plaintiff’s application, and the testimony of the involved officers.
3. BRIEFING ON THE QUESTIONS OF LAW. Plaintiff requests that the Court set a
briefing schedule on the questions of statutory interpretation identified in the Minute
Order. The interpretation of a statute in a question of law for the Court, and its resolution
may dispose of Counts I, II, and VI without trial, consistent with the Order’s provision
for further proceedings that may resolve the remaining legal issues. Plaintiff files
concurrently his Memorandum of Law on those questions (Doc 28) and proposes that the
Defendants respond within such period as the Court deems appropriate, after which the
questions stand submitted.
4. E-FILING OF SUBSTANTIVE SUBMISSIONS. In light of the earlier loss of the
original docket, Plaintiff requests that the Court direct that substantive submissions by
both parties, including discovery responses, and trial materials, be made through the
e-filing system so that the record is complete and reviewable. Plaintiff will of course
comply on his side.
5. FORMAT OF PROCEEDINGS. Plaintiff requests that any trial or evidentiary proceeding
be conducted in a format in which Plaintiff can participate fully in writing or text, for the
genuine personal reasons previously raised in this matter, so that scheduling accounts for
this from the outset.
6. REMAINING MOTIONS. Plaintiff is content for his Motion for Preliminary Injunction
(Doc 06) and Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Doc 09) to be held in abeyance and folded
into the merits schedule rather than separately briefed.
III. CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter a scheduling order granting or
setting for ruling Docs 07 and 08, setting a response schedule on the questions of law addressed
in Doc 28, directing that substantive submissions proceed through the e-filing system, providing
that any trial or evidentiary proceeding be conducted in a text-accessible format, and holding
Docs 06 and 09 in abeyance.
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I certify that on this date a true copy of this Motion was served on
counsel for the Defendants by electronic means through the case channel and e-filing system.
Respectfully Submitted,
_________________________
/s/ Halo4asin
HALO4ASIN
Plaintiff, Pro Se
Ridgeway State Bar License No. 18110
3
