STATE OF RIDGEWAY
BattalionGavin
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CV-743
Plaintiff
v.
GlenMcDeer
Defendant
MOTION TO DISMISS
Comes now the Defendant, GlenMcDeer, respectfullying submitting this motion to dismiss for a lack of
standing.
ARGUMENT
The Ridgeway Superior Court is given exclusive jurisdiction to hear all “civil or criminal cases and
controversies.” See Rid. Const. Article IV, Section 7. If there is no case or controversy, the court may not
adjudicate a case, for it is out of that court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. In this way, the Ridgeway State
Constitution is parallel to the United States Constitution by the “case of controversy” limitation it imposes. In
this way, the Ridgeway Supreme Court has recognized that the jurisdiction doctrines of the Federal “case or
controversy” clause hold true when interpreting the State Constitution’s “case or controversy” clause. State v.
Lx1nas, 1 Rid. __ (2022).
To start off, there are four key doctrines of the “case or controversy” clause, which, when considered
conjointly, are called justiciability—or the ability for the judiciary to hear a particular case. E.g., Flast v. Cohen,
392 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1968). For any case to be justiciable, the plaintiff must have standing, the case must not be
moot, the case must be ripe, and, finally, the case must not contain a political question; if any of these
conditions are met, the case is not justiciable. Beyond these doctrines, and the requirements of each,
justiciability presents itself with an “uncertain scope and meaning.” Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 508 (1961).
Despite the nebulous nature of justiciability, it is a bedrock principle that one must have standing to sue, for if a
party lacks standing to sue, a court cannot extend the case. Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 (1911).
For any party to have standing to sue they must demonstrate three things: an injury in fact, a causal
connection between the allegedly tortious action and the plaintiff, and that the injury will be redressed by the
requested relief. Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984). In this case the Plaintiff lacks the ever important “injury
in fact,” and thereby lacks standing. Indeed, the injury in fact is the most important part of any demonstration
of standing; prongs two and three cannot be met without first demonstrating an injury. The constraints of
justiciability require that this injury be palpable and not just a generalized grievance. Perkins v. Lukens Steel
Co., 310 U.S. 113, 125 (1940) (the court held that the Plaintiffs lacked standing as they did not assert “a
particular right of their own, as distinguished from the public's interest in the administration of the law”).
Moreover, the injury must be concrete in nature; speculatory injuries do not satisfy the burden. Warth v.
Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 508 (1975). It is in this way where the Plaintiff fails to meet his burden of standing.
At the time the complaint was filed, the Plaintiff was running in the Ridgeway State Senate elections.
With the recent addition of sugarcane into the game, and the developer mandate that the legality of such would
be left up to the player government, its continued legalization or illegalization presents an important voter
issue. Of course by campaigning the Plaintiff had exposed himself as a public figure. The Defendant, utilizing
his first amendment rights, created a billboard that read “vote no to these sugarcane-regulating officials.” This
billboard contained the image and name of the Plaintiff and two other political candidates, and was aired
throughout the county of Ridgeway; furthermore, the advertisement was placed in the Ridgeway discord server
in #community-content, a channel designed to display player-made media.
Now the Plaintiff claims that these statements caused him “severe professional and personal harm.” Civ.
Complaint at 3; however this harm is not distinct and palpable, as required by the standing doctrine. The
Plaintiff has won the Senate race, and is now a senator-elect. It is clear that the advert had no effect on the
Plaintiff’s political aspirations, nor did the publication substantially alter the Plaintiff’s job prospects as he has
not lost a job. The harm suffered by the Plaintiff is merely speculative, and a speculative injury cannot muster
to constitutional standards. E.g., Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), overruled on other grounds by Dobbs v.
Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. __ (2022).
CONCLUSION
In a fair and democratic society, each of the three branches of government must respect their properly
and duly created limitations. The executive branch cannot write laws, the legislative branch cannot interpret
the laws, and the Judiciary cannot hear cases that are not justiciable.
Therefore the court ought to dismiss this case.
Respectfully Submitted,
Defendant GlenMcDeer
By their Attorney,
/s/
HolyRomanRyan, RSB#17105
