THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
RIDGEWAY SUPERIOR COURT
HALO4ASIN,
-against-
RIDGEWAY COUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICE, errcore, and Azap634,
Defendants.
Case No. RSC-CV-1654
Presiding Judge: Arthur_Chen
dev_Typ, Ridgeway County Sheriff’s Office, errcore, Azap634, by and through the
Department of Justice, answers the Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted only where
the movant clearly demonstrates a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm absent
relief, that the balance of equities favors relief, and that the requested injunction serves the public
interest.
Plaintiff has not met that burden. Rather, Plaintiff seeks to obtain through preliminary
relief the very relief sought in the underlying action while substantial factual and legal disputes
remain pending before this Court.
II. PLAINTIFF HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED A LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON THE
MERITS.
Plaintiff's motion rests largely upon his disagreement with the outcome of the Ridgeway
County Sheriff's Office background investigation. However, disagreement with an agency's
determination does not establish that the determination was unlawful.
First, Plaintiff was informed of the basis for the negative determination. Plaintiff
acknowledges throughout his filings that the Sheriff's Office determined there was a likelihood
that Plaintiff was operating or associated with an alternate account. Plaintiff's disagreement with
that conclusion does not transform the explanation into a failure to provide one.
Second, Plaintiff's reliance upon the determination of another agency is misplaced. The
fact that another agency may have reached a different conclusion does not establish that
Defendants acted unlawfully, arbitrarily, or in bad faith. Background investigations are
independently conducted by individual agencies, each of which may assess evidence differently
and reach different conclusions based upon its own standards and judgment.
Third, Plaintiff has presented no evidence establishing bias, retaliation, or a disqualifying
conflict of interest. The motion relies primarily upon speculation arising from Plaintiff's prior
interactions with Defendant Azap634. Plaintiff identifies no statement, action, communication,
or document demonstrating that the challenged decision was motivated by personal animus,
retaliation, or improper considerations. Conclusory allegations are insufficient to justify
extraordinary injunctive relief.
At minimum, substantial factual disputes remain regarding the circumstances surrounding
Plaintiff's application and the investigation conducted by Defendants. Such disputes weigh
heavily against the issuance of a preliminary injunction.
III. PLAINTIFF HAS NOT ESTABLISHED IRREPARABLE HARM.
Plaintiff likewise fails to demonstrate irreparable harm.
Should Plaintiff ultimately prevail on the merits, this Court retains the ability to grant
appropriate relief at final judgment. The existence of an adequate legal remedy strongly weighs
against preliminary injunctive relief.
Additionally, Plaintiff has offered no evidence that Defendants intend to destroy records,
alter evidence, or otherwise frustrate the Court's ability to provide complete relief at a later stage
of these proceedings. Plaintiff's assertions of future harm are speculative and unsupported by
evidence.
IV. THE BALANCE OF EQUITIES FAVORS DEFENDANTS.
The requested injunction would substantially interfere with Defendants' administration of
their hiring and background investigation processes before any determination of liability has
been made.
By contrast, Plaintiff identifies no immediate injury that cannot be addressed through the
normal litigation process. The equities therefore favor maintaining the status quo while the
parties litigate the merits of the dispute.
V. THE PUBLIC INTEREST DOES NOT FAVOR AN INJUNCTION.
The public has a strong interest in permitting law enforcement agencies to conduct
independent background investigations and make hiring determinations without judicial
interference absent a clear showing of illegality.
The public interest is best served by allowing the litigation process to proceed to a final
determination on the merits rather than imposing extraordinary preliminary relief based upon
disputed facts and unproven allegations.
VI. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm,
that the balance of equities favors relief, or that an injunction would serve the public interest.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that the Court:
1. DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction in its entirety; and
2. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
DATED: June 12, 2026
Respectfully submitted,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
/s/ dev_Typ
dev_Typ, Esq.
Counsel for Defendants
“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the
former”
