THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
RIDGEWAY SUPERIOR COURT
HALO4ASIN,
-against-
RIDGEWAY COUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICE, errcore, and Azap634,
Defendants.
Case No. RSC-CV-1654
CIVIL COMPLAINT
Presiding Judge: Arthur_Chen
dev_Typ, Ridgeway County Sheriff’s Office, errcore, Azap634, by and through the
Department of Justice, answers the civil complaint as follows:
RESPONSES TO NUMBERED ALLEGATIONS
1. Defendants admit Plaintiff submitted an application to the Ridgeway County Sheriff's
Office and that the application was not approved. Defendants deny all remaining
allegations.
2. Admitted that Plaintiff purports to seek declaratory and injunctive relief and not monetary
damages. Remaining allegations denied.
3. Denied.
4. Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny Plaintiff's assertions regarding
his qualifications, certifications, and standing and therefore deny the same.
5. Admitted that the Ridgeway County Sheriff's Office is an agency of Ridgeway County
and processed Plaintiff's application. Remaining allegations denied.
6. Admitted that errcore held the rank of Captain at relevant times. Defendants deny all
allegations suggesting unlawful conduct, improper review, or wrongdoing.
7. Admitted that Azap634 held the positions alleged at relevant times. Remaining
allegations denied.
8. Denied.
9. Defendants admit the Complaint purports to invoke this Court's jurisdiction. Defendants
deny any characterization of Defendants' conduct as unlawful.
10. Defendants deny that any adverse action was arbitrary or contrary to law.
11. Defendants admit Plaintiff may petition the courts. Remaining allegations denied.
12. Admitted that the Court possesses such authority as provided by law. Remaining
allegations denied.
13. Defendants do not contest venue.
14-17. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Plaintiff's asserted qualifications
and therefore deny the same.
18. Admitted.
19. Admitted that Plaintiff's application status changed during the review process. Remaining
allegations denied.
20. Denied.
21-24. Defendants deny the allegations concerning retaliation, improper motive, disclosure of
information, or misconduct.
25. Admitted that a background review was conducted. Remaining allegations denied.
26. Admitted that Plaintiff received notice identifying the applicable
background-investigation criterion. Remaining allegations denied.
27. Denied.
28. Denied.
29. Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny Plaintiff's characterization of
prior accounts and therefore deny the same.
30. Denied.
31. Denied.
32. Admitted that agency personnel reviewed information relevant to Plaintiff's application.
Defendants deny that any review was retaliatory.
33. Denied.
34-38. Admitted only that communications occurred. All allegations of retaliation, misconduct,
arbitrariness, or wrongdoing are denied.
39. Admitted that Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Office of the State Auditor. Defendants
deny any allegation that the filing establishes wrongdoing by Defendants.
40. Admitted that the State Auditor proceeding occurred and was ultimately dismissed.
Defendants deny any characterization of the dismissal as supporting Plaintiff's claims and
deny any allegation inconsistent with the official record.
41. Admitted that the State Auditor dismissed the complaint and advised Plaintiff that any
remaining disputes could be pursued through appropriate channels. Defendants deny any
allegation that the State Auditor found misconduct, retaliation, bias, arbitrariness, or
statutory violations by Defendants.
42. Admitted that Defendants advised the State Auditor that aspects of the review process
remained under consideration at the time of the inquiry. Defendants deny any allegation
that such statements were false, misleading, improper, or inconsistent with agency
procedures.
43. Admitted that Plaintiff's account had previously been reviewed by the Ridgeway
Department of Transportation.
44. Admitted that RDOT later reached a different conclusion regarding Plaintiff's account.
Defendants deny that RDOT's determination is binding upon RCSO or that RCSO was
required to adopt RDOT's findings or conclusions.
45. Denied. Defendants affirmatively state that each agency maintains independent hiring,
screening, and investigative authority. Any determination made by RDOT neither
controlled nor dictated the outcome of RCSO's review.
46. Admitted that Plaintiff's application was finalized and not approved.
47. Defendants admit that communications occurred following commencement of this action.
Defendants deny Plaintiff's characterization of those communications and deny any
allegation of retaliation, bias, improper motive, conflict of interest, or other wrongdoing.
48. Admitted that Plaintiff has attached exhibits to his Complaint. Defendants deny any
characterization of those exhibits inconsistent with their contents.
COUNT 1
49. Defendants incorporate their prior responses as though fully set forth herein.
50. Admitted that Section 122.404 contains notice requirements applicable to negative
background determinations.
51. Admitted that Section 122.404(a) permits publication of reasoning through an application
results tracker.
52. Admitted that Plaintiff received a negative background determination. Defendants deny
any allegation that statutory notice requirements were violated.
53. Denied. Defendants affirmatively state that Plaintiff was provided notice identifying the
applicable statutory basis for the determination consistent with agency practice and
governing law.
54. Denied.
55. Denied that Plaintiff is entitled to any declaration or injunctive relief.
COUNT 2
56. Defendants incorporate their prior responses as though fully set forth herein.
57. Admitted that Section 122.308 contains notice requirements where applicable.
58. Admitted that the cited statutes contain the language quoted therein.
59. Denied. Defendants affirmatively state that Plaintiff was informed of the basis for the
determination and that Defendants complied with all applicable statutory obligations.
60. Denied.
COUNT 3
61. Defendants incorporate their prior responses as though fully set forth herein.
62. Admitted that applicants are entitled to an unbiased review process.
63. Admitted that the cited merit principles exist. Defendants deny any violation thereof.
64. Denied
65. Admitted that reviews conducted by conflicted officers with personal stakes in outcomes
are biased reviews; denied that Plaintiff was denied fair and equitable treatment.
66. Denied that Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory, injunctive, or personnel-related relief.
COUNT 4
67. Defendants incorporate their prior responses as though fully set forth herein.
68. Admitted that the cited statutes contain the provisions referenced therein.
69. Denied. Defendants affirmatively state that the determination was based upon
information available during the review process and was neither arbitrary nor contrary to
statute.
70. Denied
COUNT 5
71. Defendants incorporate their prior responses as though fully set forth herein.
72. Admitted that the cited statutes contain protections against retaliation and reprisal.
Defendants deny any violation thereof.
73. Admitted that Plaintiff submitted a misconduct complaint. Defendants deny that any
subsequent personnel determination was based upon or influenced by that complaint.
74. Denied
75. Denied
COUNT 6
76. Defendants incorporate their prior responses as though fully set forth herein.
77. Admitted that the cited statute contains the provisions referenced therein.
78. Denied
79. Denied
COUNT 7
80. Defendants incorporate their prior responses as though fully set forth herein.
81. Denied
82. Admitted that the cited statutes exist. Defendants deny that their policies or procedures
violate any statute or warrant injunctive relief.
83. Denied
COUNT 8
84. Defendants incorporate their prior responses as though fully set forth herein.
85. Denied that any justiciable controversy exists requiring the relief sought by Plaintiff,
except to the extent reflected by the filing of this lawsuit.
86. Admitted that the cited constitutional provisions exist. Defendants deny any violation
thereof.
87. Denied
[]
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. First Affirmative Defense
a. FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
i. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
because Plaintiff's allegations consist largely of legal conclusions,
speculative assertions, and requests for relief not authorized by law, and
do not plead sufficient facts establishing a violation of any statute,
constitutional provision, or enforceable legal duty owed by Defendants
(Ridgeway Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (authorizing dismissal for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted)).
2. Second Affirmative Defense
a. Plaintiff fails to establish any violation of statute, policy, or constitutional
provision.
3. Third Affirmative Defense
a. The application decision involved discretionary personnel and hiring
determinations committed to the appointing authority, consistent with the law
4. Fourth Affirmative Defense
a. Plaintiff cannot establish causation between any protected activity and the
challenged determination.
5. Fifth Affirmative Defense
a. Plaintiff cannot establish bias, conflict of interest, retaliation, arbitrariness, or bad
faith.
6. Sixth Affirmative Defense
a. Any actions taken by Defendants were undertaken in good faith and in accordance
with applicable law, policy, and agency procedures.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that:
1. Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice;
2. Judgment be entered in favor of Defendants on all counts;
3. Plaintiff take nothing by way of his Complaint;
4. The Court grants such other and further relief as it deems just and proper.
DATED: Jun 1, 2026
Respectfully submitted,
dev_Typ, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
GENERAL
/s/ dev_Typ
——―――――――――――――
“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the
former”
