ADM F. 500 (Rev. 03/22) Order and Judgment
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
RIDGEWAY CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CV-285
Plaintiff
v.
SHADOWCULTURE, et al.
Defendant
BACKGROUND
On April 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a civil complaint against Defendant with respect to the
tort of Civil Action For Systemic Rights Violation seen at 5 R. Stat. § 314, arguing that the
Firearm Freezone Act seen at S1-009 was “overarching” and “constitutionally vague.” On April
20, 2022, Defense filed a motion to dismiss this matter, arguing a lack of standing.
JUDGMENT
The State of Ridgeway’s Firearm Freezone Act prohibits the possession of firearms in
certain places. Under the tort of Civil Action For Systemic Rights Violation, “[p]laintiffs must
demonstrate that they received concrete, non-hypothetical harm from the policy, order,
procedure, or directive.” As an organization, it is not possible for the Ridgeway Civil Liberties
Union to experience concrete harm. Even though the Ridgeway Civil Liberties Union represents
various individuals, largely focusing on civil rights, it does not speak for all of the people who
may or may not be influenced by the aforementioned law. Additionally, no tangible example of
an individual being deprived of their constitutional rights as a direct result of the law has been
substantiated. The Ridgeway Civil Liberties Union has largely relied on a hypothetical narrative
of potential complications that may arise from the enforcement of the law. No specific instance
of harm has been indicated in Plaintiff’s civil complaint.
In describing the guidelines to determine if a case has standing, the U.S. Supreme Court
requires that “the plaintiff must have suffered an ‘injury in fact’—an invasion of a legally
protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized … and (b) ‘actual or imminent, not
‘conjectural’ or `hypothetical.’” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992). Even in
the lightest interpretation of this standard, there is no indication that an imminent threat to the
constitutional rights of a large group of citizens of the State of Ridgeway exists. Furthermore, in
reiteration of the “injury in fact” test, “the party seeking review [must] be himself among the
injured.” Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727. Plaintiff's civil complaint delves primarily into
the content of the law and a broad analysis of its apparent unconstitutionality without, at the
very least, including one example of an injury faced by anyone. Even in a pre-enforcement
challenge, Plaintiff has failed to utilize relevant examples of injury that could be faced through
the enforcement of the law. With an interest to take apart the law itself and argue its
unconstitutionality without providing any rational basis as to how it would apply to the common
person, Plaintiff has no standing in this case.
CONCLUSION
The Defense’s motion to dismiss is granted. This case is dismissed without prejudice.
SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED.
At Palmer, Ridgeway, this 2nd day of May, 2022.
/s/ zac2524
CHIEF JUDGE
