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 CLARIFICATION OF THE RECORD AND OF THE
COURT’S RULINGS OF JULY 26, 2026
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Halo4asin, pro se, and respectfully moves for clarification of
the record and of the rulings entered at the hearing of July 26, 2026. Plaintiff seeks no
reconsideration of any ruling; he seeks only to know the posture of the case so that he
may comply with it. In support, Plaintiff states as follows:
I. BACKGROUND
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment was filed in this matter on June 5, 2026,
opposed by the Defendants on June 9, 2026, and replied to by Plaintiff on June 9, 2026.
The pleadings, opposition, and reply were part of the written record of this case.
2. Thereafter, and through no act of any party, the docket of this matter was deleted in error,
as confirmed on the record by the Clerk’s office. The matter was reintaken under Case
No. RSC-CV-9279, and Plaintiff’s operative filings were refiled there.
3. On July 12, 2026, while the matter proceeded under Case No. RSC-CV-9279, a minute
order was entered denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. That order was
entered by a judicial officer who has since been disqualified from this matter.
1
4. This docket, Case No. RSC-CV-5191, was subsequently recovered, and this Court has
indicated it is merging the two records.
II. CLARIFICATION REQUESTED
5. THE STATUS OF THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT RULING. Plaintiff respectfully
requests clarification as to whether the Court’s ruling at the July 26 hearing constitutes (a)
a new and independent ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment as filed in this
docket, or (b) the adoption of the July 12, 2026 minute order previously entered in Case
No. RSC-CV-9279. Plaintiff asks so that he may know whether the ruling under which he
now proceeds is that of this Court or that of the disqualified judicial officer.
6. THE RECORD CONSIDERED. Plaintiff respectfully requests confirmation of which
submissions were before the Court, and in particular whether the Court had before it
Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. The Reply is material
because it raised Rid. R. Civ. P. 38(d), under which an adverse party “may not rest upon
the mere allegations or denials of his pleading” and must set forth specific facts by
affidavit, failing which “summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him.”
The Defendants submitted no affidavit at any point in this matter.
7. THE OPERATIVE RESPONSE SET. Plaintiff respectfully requests clarification, as the
dockets are merged, that the Defendants are entitled to one response to the Motion for
Summary Judgment rather than a cumulative set drawn from both dockets. Prior counsel
filed a response in this docket; successor counsel filed further responses in Case No.
RSC-CV-9279 on the same subject matter.
8. THE SCOPE OF DISCOVERY ORDERED. Plaintiff requests that the Court’s discovery
rulings be memorialized in a written order, so that the parties and any custodian served
may know their obligations. Plaintiff’s understanding is that the Court granted Requests
1, 2, 3 (as to the factors relied upon, but not as to the operation of any automated system),
and 7; denied Requests 4, 5, and 6, with leave to depose the persons identified in Request
4; granted the subpoena to the Office of the State Auditor; and denied the subpoena to the
Ridgeway Department of Transportation and to the Military Police.
9. THE SCOPE OF THE GAG ORDER. Plaintiff requests clarification of the scope of the
gag order entered on July 26, 2026, including whom it binds and what conduct it reaches,
and confirmation that it does not restrict any party’s filings before this Court or any
party’s conduct of separate litigation.
III. CONCLUSION
2
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court clarify the foregoing, and enter its
discovery rulings and the gag order in written form. Plaintiff will comply with the Court’s orders
in all respects and appreciates the Court’s attention in hearing each of Plaintiff’s pending
motions.
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
