Citation: RSC-CV-270 Date: 2022-04-14
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
LX1NAS
Plaintif,
v.
State of Ridgeway
Defendant.
RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS
BY THE
HONOURABLE JUDGE DANNLABS
Counsel for the Plaintiff: Mytrus & Partners
Counsel for the Defendant: Solicitor General Clifford2
Place of Hearing: N/A
Date of Hearing: N/A
Date of Judgement: April 20th, 2022
IN THE CASE OF LX1NAS V. STATE OF RIDGWAY
On motion from the Defence to dismiss this case, I will deny this motion.
[1] INTERPRETING EX PARTE YOUNG
As pointed out to me by re-reading the case and justice Jackson in 22-01, Ex Parte Young is a case specifically centered
around a state’s immunity in a federal court; of which this court is not. Furthermore, Ex Parte Young applies
specifically to constitutional issues, and would otherwise be valid if the question at hand was not presented by a state
statute.
[2] STATE IS NOT ENTITLED SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY AS IT HAS CONSENTED
It is claimed by the defence that “a state may not be sued in its own courts without its consent” (railroad co. V.
Tenassee (1880)) but in this case, the government has consented through statutory means, as the original Civil
Complaint’s cause of action, sections 3 & 4, points out the law is a contravention to the state constitution and US
constitution, wherein creating a explicit liability against the state, opening it to a suit under Civil Claims Act 2.2(b),
which I shall expand upon more in the next section.
[3] PLAINTIFFS HAS STANDING TO FILE SUIT
Through the interpretation of 2.2(b) of the Civil Claims Act, “The government is exempt from all suits in this section,
except for later laws in which liability is explicitly created”, however due to the law contravening with the state
constitutions right to freedom, and the plaintiff being arrested due to a unconstitutional law, the plaintiff has the
grounds and standing to file suit.
[4] RELIEF IS GRANTABLE UNDER CIVIL CLAIMS ACT
The Civil Claims Act section 2.1 provides that “Any policy, order, procedure, or directive that infringes upon an
individual’s rights, immunities or privileges as secured by law shall be subject to injunctive relief.”
With regards to concerns about the in personam holdings of Nken V. Holder (2009), the effect of the injunction
would operate in personam by preventing agents of the states to justify their arrests under the Wildlife Conservation
Act.
[5] PLAINTIFFS 2ND CAUSE OF ACTION CARRIES MERIT
The defence claims that the 2nd cause of action in the plaintiffs civil complaint does not carry merit because the
clause should not be read to allege a right, however in the defence’s own motion, they quote the clause as “every
member of society hath a right to be protected in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property”. Their reasoning for this
is that the clause should not be read alone, and that it is rather an exchange between the government and its citizens
for their contribution to society. I however refute this claim, as even with the additional context, it does not remove
this right from any citizen or rather, member of society, from its protections. The government must do its due
diligence with regards to the rights of its citizens, regardless of their beliefs.
It is so ordered,
/s/ Dannlabs
