STATE OF RIDGEWAY
EPIDERMISGUPTA69
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CV-844
JUDGE. HON. AlexJCabot
Plaintiff
v.
BETATHEWOLFGAMER
Defendant
MOTION TO DISMISS
The State of Ridgeway, on behalf of Defendant BetaTheWolfGamer, respectfully
submitted this motion to dismiss.
INTRODUCTION
This court must dismiss the suit before it because the plaintiff has failed to state the
knowing element of their misconduct claims. Furthermore, even if we take all the facts that the
Plaintiff alleges as true, the Defendant's conduct does not constitute official misconduct.
ARGUMENT
1. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM CANNOT MORE FORWARD SINCE THEY FAIL TO
ALLEGE ALL THE ELEMENTS OF OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT
In order for a claim to proceed under a certain cause of action, all the elements of the
cause of action must be alleged in the civil complaint. “Like any other element of a cause of
action, it must be adequately alleged at the pleading stage in order for the case to proceed.”
Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (2014) (citing Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 US 662, 679 (2009)). Indeed, “every essential ingredient of such a cause of action
[must be] appropriately alleged” Moore v. C. O. Ry. Co., 291 U.S. 205 (1934).
For this case to proceed, the civil complaint, and all the facts therein, must be “plausible
on [their] face.” See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 US 544, 570 (2007). Even if all the
facts of the civil complaint were taken as true, it would not be enough for this complaint to
follow through and continue in this court. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 US 662, 664 (2009)
(Holding that claims can be dismissed if the facts pleaded do not entitle the Plaintiff to relief).
In order to be found liable of official misconduct, a plaintiff must show (1) the defendant
is a public servant, (2) the defendant “commits an act relating to his office but constitutes an
unauthorized exercise of his official functions” and (3) that the defendant did so “knowing that
such act is unauthorized.” See 1 R. Stat. § 3114. The plaintiff fails to allege anything — either
factual or conclusory — related to the third element of the claim. Therefore, having not pleaded
every element of the cause of action, the Plaintiff’s suit is not plausible on its face and must be
dismissed.
2. THE DEFENDANT DID NOT COMMIT AN UNAUTHORIZED EXERCISE OF
HIS OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS, KNOWING IT WAS UNAUTHORIZED
Plaintiffs appear to assert that because the Defendant was a part of the Patrol Division of
the Ridgeway County Sheriff’s Office, that he was in excess of his authority when he issued
traffic citations and arrested the Plaintiff for traffic infractions. Plaintiff claims that “The Patrol
Division is tasked specifically with patrolling ‘the streets of the State and ensur[ing] general
order and tranquility and provid[ing] assistance where necessary.’ Incorporation of Ridgeway
County §1.2(a).” However, Plaintiffs neglect to mention that 6 R. Stat. § 2109 (vi) states the
Sheriff’s Office may “enforce traffic laws on county roads.” Therefore, the defendant did not
exceed his authority in issuing citations and arresting the defendant for traffic infractions.
The fact that these citations were dismissed/expunged and the defendant was found not
guilty for “Failure to Yield to a Traffic Control Device” does not invalidate the legality of the
initial arrest. Indeed, it must be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the time
of the incident, not a group of legal professionals in retrospect. Regardless of if the Plaintiff was
ultimately found innocent or not, the Defendant operated in good-faith in carrying out the duties
assigned to him as a member of the Ridgeway County Sheriff's office.
In order to succeed on a claim of official misconduct, the Plaintiff must show that the
Defendant knowingly exceeded his authority. Not only have they failed to allege this (which we
discuss in the foregoing section and which is reason enough to dismiss), but even if they had, it
wouldn’t have been true. The defendant simply was making a good-faith effort to enforce the
traffic laws of the state to the best of his ability and knowledge.
CONCLUSION
Because the Plaintiff fails to allege all elements of their cause of action, this suit must be
dismissed pursuant to United States Supreme Court precedent. Furthermore, the Defendant did
not exceed his authority in issuing traffic citations and arrests.
Dated: 1/08/2023
/s/ totoro987123
Solicitor General
Department of Justice
Counsel of Record
/s/ Derogatoryyy
Assistant Solicitor General
Department of Justice
/s/ MatthewSandringham
Attorney at Law
Counsel for the Defendant
