RIDGEWAY SUPERIOR COURT
EPIDERMISGUPTA69,
Plaintiff,
v.
BETATHEWOLFGAMER,
Defendant.
Case No. RSC-CV-841
RESPONSE TO THE MOTION TO
DISMISS
Presiding Judge: koalaMedvedeva
RESPONSE TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS
PLAINTIFF, epidermisgupta69, by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby files
this response to the defendants’ motion to dismiss submitted on the 28th of January—
ARGUMENT
The Plaintiff argues that both causes, or counts–however you wish to describe them–fail
to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Rid. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). The Supreme Court has found this rule to be parallel to the Federal Rules
of Procedure and has incorporated precedent surrounding Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 8(a)(2). xLaZerify
v. StudsPerSecond, 1 Rid. __, __. Under this rule a civil complaint must plead facts so sufficient
as to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570.
When analyzing if a complaint has met this a court must accept all facts as true. Id. Further, a
complaint is sufficient when it allows the court to draw a “reasonable inference” of liability.
xLaZerify, supra.
And indeed, the complaint allows for such. The Plaintiff includes three causes of action,
all for Official Misconduct . The Plaintiff brings three theories of liability: that the Defendant1
trespassed into the Plaintiff’s private abode and therefore used his office in an unauthorized
manner, knowing or with reasonable knowledge that such was unlawful, and that through this
entrance the Defendant failed to uphold the duties imposed upon him as a member of the
Ridgeway County Sheriff’s Office Patrol Division; that the Defendant, by allowing the Plaintiff
to die in his custody, failed to protect the Plaintiff’s life—something that is a clearly inherent
duty of his office; and finally, that the Defendant violated the Plaintiff’s right to be free from
unreasonable searches and seizures thereby committing an unauthorized function of his office
with reasonable knowledge that the violation was unlawful. The Defendant contends that the first
two causes are not pleaded sufficiently.
The Defendant contends that because the trespass is challenged in the third cause, this
Court cannot interpret the first cause as challenging the trespass too. And because of this, the2
Defense contends that this cause is insufficiently pleaded because it would hinder law
enforcement officials from doing their duties because “the nature of law enforcement is
fundamentally disruptive.” Id. And finally the Defense contends that these allegations are
“wholly within merit.” Id. A motion to dismiss on the grounds that the Defendant contends is not
the proper venue for an argument such as this, as factual assertions are not appropriate in this
setting. BattalionGavin v. GlenMcDeer, RSC-CV-743. Therefore the Court need not even
consider the merit of this argument; nevertheless the Defendant’s claims are still superficial at
best. The Plaintiff, as alleged within the civil complaint, is a member of the Ridgeway County
Sheriff’s Office, Amended Complaint at 1, it is a duty imposed by law that the Sheriff's Office
uphold the general tranquility and peace of the State. And it is well pleaded within the civil3
complaint that the Defendant entered the Plaintiff’s private abode. Further, it is well pleaded that
the Defendant had no legal authority to do so, and therefore the Defendant refrained from
upholding his duty to preserve the general peace and tranquility. Civil Complaint at 1-2. Because
of this, it is wholly reasonable for the Court to infer liability because the text of the Official
Misconduct tort makes no delineation between conduct that is necessary to law enforcement or
that which is excessive. But even then, this Court need only consider whether it can reasonably
3 Incorporation of Ridgway County §1.2(a).
2 The Defendant writes “This Court cannot interpret this first cause of action as challenging the defendant’s alleged
trespass itself, since that conduct is challenged in the amended complaint’s third cause of action. Motion to Dismiss
at 2.
1 For reference, Official Misconduct is defined as “Any individual who is a public servant and commits an act
relating to his office but constitutes an unauthorized exercise of his official functions, knowing that such act is
unauthorized; or refrains from performing a duty which is imposed upon him by law or is clearly inherent in the
nature of his office.” 1 R. Stat. 3114.
infer liability, not consider the merits of this case. And of course an inference is not hard in any
case, but especially not this one because the facts clearly raise the claim from speculative to
plausible.
Secondly, the Defendant asserts that the second cause is insufficient because it does not
contain factual pleadings regarding a “deliberate indifference.” However, such indifference is
only required when asserting a claim that due process rights were violated. E.g., Redman v.
County of San Diego, 896 F.2d 362, 365 (9th Cir. 1990); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 537 n.16
(1979). But we make no such claims. It is an inherent duty of law enforcement officers to enforce
the law, and sometimes these officers must detain individuals. When officers do, they deprive
them of any liberty, meaning they cannot defend themselves; when this happens, it must
reasonably fall on the officer to protect the detainee. It is sufficiently pleaded that the Defendant
placed the Plaintiff into handcuffs, and then both the Plaintiff and Defendant were killed, but the
Plaintiff was in cuffs at the time of death. As aforementioned, it is an inherent duty of law
enforcement officers to protect those in their custody. These facts and conclusions are all pleaded
within the civil complaint, therefore it is wholly permissible for the Court to make a reasonable
inference of liability. But the Defendant’s claims also fall short because the deliberate
indifference standard only applies to pre-trial detainees and convicted defendants. E.g., Salazar v.
City of Chicago, 940 F.2d 233, 237-41 (7th Cir. 1991); Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U. S. 294, 503. The
Plaintiff in this case was not a pre-trial detainee; nay, he was only a detained individual for the
purposes of an investigation. Thus, the Defendant’s claims are without merit.
CONCLUSION
The Plaintiff in this case was subject to blatant harm as a result of a Law Enforcement
Officer’s actions and omissions, nothing can detract from this. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff still
bears the burden of properly pleading facts that can allow this Court to draw a reasonable
inference of liability. And, in this case, the Court may because the facts are sufficiently pleaded.
Therefore, the Plaintiff urges the court to deny the Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
DATED: January 31st, 2023 Respectfully Submitted,
HolyRomanRyan
Counsel of Record
