IN THE RIDGEWAY COUNTY COURT
FOR THE COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
TrendLUV,
vs.
Ridgeway County.
Case No. CCRC-CV-1445
Presiding Judge: Hon. SpencerNixon
MOTION TO DISMISS
Here comes Ridgeway County, through Conjman, Commissioner_Jason, and
jaredft45 in the following motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rid. R. Civ.
P. 9(a)(2).
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
1. Under Rid. R. Civ. P. 9(a)(2), pleadings that state a claim must include “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,”
Plaintiff has failed to assert that he is entitled to relief, as such the matter must be
dismissed.
2. Pleadings must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief,” (Iqbal, supra, quoting Twombly, supra). Plaintiff has
failed to do so. The standard established by Rule 9 doesn’t require “detailed
factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation,” (Iqbal, supra, quoting
Twombly, supra(quotations omitted)). Iqbal further states that “a pleading that
offers labels and conclusions, or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause
of action will not do,” (quoting Twombly, supra).
1
3. “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter
accepted as true to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face… A claim has
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged… The plausibility standard is not asking for a ‘probability requirement,’
but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully,”
(Iqbal, supra, quoting Twombly, supra (internal quotations omitted)). We argue
that the defendant has the full right to terminate any employee of the County for a
reasonable, or in this case, fully accurate, belief that an individual is engaging in
illegal activity and association with those who would jeopardize the mission and
duty of the County.
4. In Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 US 564 (1972), the Supreme
Court decreed that “the requirements of procedural due process apply only to those
encompassed by the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of liberty and property,”
(Roth, supra, at 569). The Court further continued to state that “the respondents
interest in re-employment … outweighed the University’s interest in denying him
re-employment,” (Roth, supra, at 570). In the matter of Roth, the respondent had
filed suit due to not receiving a hearing after not being retained by Wisconsin State
University. This directly correlates as the County’s interest to not employ a
criminal greatly and extremely outweighs the plaintiffs non-existent right to
employment.
2
5. The government, as would be expected, does not wish to employ a criminal in a
law enforcement position or the county clerk's office. As the government’s sole
purpose is to provide for the people, namely their security, it would not be wise to
employ an individual who proudly states that he deals firearms, threatens judges,
and associates with criminal organizations. As the plaintiff has not been harmed by
any of these actions, as evidenced by his civil complaint, he has obviously not lost
on any property or liberty, as would be required to establish a due process
requirement under Bishop v. Wood, 426 US 341 (1976), Iqbal, supra, and
Twombly, supra.
6. Plaintiff, in his complaint, further contends that “nowhere does the Charter,
Constitution, or the Laws of the County of Ridgeway permit such dismissal [of the
County Clerk].” This is obviously false as under the Ridgeway County Charter
section 3.03 (c), “The County Executive is authorized to suspend or remove
County employees with just grounds unless the employee is a member of the
County Sheriff's Office or the District Attorney's Office.” The County Charter
gives the County Executive implicit administrative authority over county officials
unless the process to remove such officials is implicitly defined. The County
Charter lacks any clause detailing as to how the County Clerk is dismissed so
therefore the implicit construction remains. The County Clerk is a direct employee
of the County Executive and as such can be terminated by him. While the Clerk is
appointed by the Executive with consent of the County Board, this is identically
3
similar to where the President of the United States can dismiss a member of his
cabinet.
7. Further, the plaintiff fails to even state how his dismissal from the County Clerk
position was a “systemic rights violation,” and that a writ of quo warranto would
not provide relief for any damages (which have also been failed to be stated).
8. Further, the plaintiff does not even come close to relating how a writ to establish
precedent that internal agency actions would provide relief for his actions. Simply,
the plaintiff does not even want to be reinstated, he just wants to try and get
revenge for his lawful termination.
Date: July 16th, 2021 Respectfully submitted:
Conjman
Deputy District Attorney
/s/ jaredft45
Jaredft45
Assistant Deputy District Attorney
Civil and Appellate Affairs
/s/ Commissioner_Jason
Commissioner_Jason
Assistant Deputy District Attorney
Civil and Appellate Affairs
4
