ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
State of Ridgeway
IN RE
SUPRAMQRK5
Petitioner
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIM RESPONSE
CLAIM NO. RSC-AD-2213
ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIM RESPONSE
CLAIM INFORMATION
Agency: Palmer Police Department
Type of Action 2 R. Stat. § 3135 – Arbitrary Punishment
IA Reference No. B109
Responding Agent Ridgeway Solicitor General’s Office
MANDATORY DISCLOSURE
Internal Affairs Report: Report Link
Violations: Misrepresentation and Other Jurisdiction Policy
Criminal Referral: N/A (No referral)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1) Lieutenant Supramqrk5 (“Petitioner”) is an employee of the Palmer Police Department.
2) On or about January 21, 2024, the Petitioner was patrolling during his shift. During this
patrol, the Petitioner was requested by a Sheriff’s Deputy to response outside of his
jurisdiction because of the shortage of law enforcement.
3) Petitioner willingly responded to the request, driving outside of his jurisdiction to stand
by for other law enforcement agencies who were not online. During Petitioner’s
employment, driving outside of Palmer City Limits for this reason has never been a
sustainable practice under department policy or state law.
4) During his patrol, the Petitioner picked up an individual who requested a ride to the
Ridgeway National Guard’s Military Exclusion Zone (“MEZ”). Agreeing to transport
him, the Petitioner drove to the MEZ. During this time, the Palmer Police Department did
not and does not hold an easement to enter this zone for any reason.1
5) Upon arrival, Petitioner was asked numerous times by National Guard personnel to leave
the MEZ; Petitioner refused to leave, claiming he was not within the bounds of the MEZ.
Petitioner’s insubordination was recognized after a lengthy conflict with the National
Guard, and he was reported to the Palmer Police Department’s Internal Affairs Unit.
6) The investigator assigned to the case concluded that the Petitioner was “continuously
inciting conflicts and wars with other departments” which, in turn, “harms the
department's reputation and creates a negative perception within the Palmer Police
Department” B109 Disciplinary Action Report, p. 2. Furthermore, the investigator
deemed that it necessary to “suspend the lieutenant and have him on a zero-tolerance
policy for one week” Id. As a result, Petitioner was suspended.
ARGUMENT
I. Administrative Standard of Review
Under state law, a public employee may request this tribunal to review an unlawful
employment practice. See 2 R. Stat. § 3301. As such, the Administrative Court is vested “original
jurisdiction over all civil claims involving administrative action, or policy, or rules of a
government agency” Id. at § 3305. Furthermore, this Court can “grant equitable remedy as
necessary to ensure proper enforcement of law” Id. at § 3307. However, the Administrative Court
1 It is generally accepted by law that law enforcement agencies may transgress the perimeters of this zone during a
pursuit of any kind, but only for that purpose.
cannot exhaust its powers in matters where it lacks original jurisdiction to hear an administrative
claim. In this case, there is no injury; without injury, this Court loses its stated jurisdiction.
II. Petitioner Has Failed To Demonstrate An Actual Case or Controversy.
A. Standard of Review.
For entitlement to a judgment of any kind, a movant must demonstrate an existing case or
controversy. See National Park Hospitality Assn. v. Dept. of Interior, 538 U.S. 803, 815 (2003)
(To establish an Article III case or controversy, “a litigant must establish that he has standing”)
(quoting Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 155 (1990)). A plaintiff’s standing is diminished
when he no longer is “interested in and affected adversely by the decision of which he seeks
review” Joint Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 151 (1951) (emphasis added).
B. Administrative Action Against Plaintiff Has Been Discontinued, Mooting His
Administrative Claim and Foreclosing Desired Relief.
Standing to sue is “an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy
requirement,” and without it, a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Lujan v. Defenders of
Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). Petitioner asks this Court to review a decision by the Palmer
Police Department that temporarily suspended him from his duties and placed him on a
zero-tolerance policy. At the time of the filing of this claim, the suspension against Petitioner has
been lifted. Petitioner cannot satisfy a showing of injury or redress because he is no longer under
the constraints of a suspension. Petitioner has the one thing that he seeks from this Court—a
reversal of his department-imposed suspension.
An administrative change or alteration to administrative decisions moots a pending
lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief if the change has the effect of rescinding the
challenged decision or if it provides the plaintiff with the prospective relief he sought. Therefore,
because the Palmer Police Department has lifted its action, Petitioner no longer presents this
Court with a claim that is plausible under the requirements of Article III standing. As such, this
Court should dismiss Petitioner’s only administrative claim for lack of jurisdiction (standing)
Respectfully submitted.
Stickza
Solicitor General
Ridgeway Department of Justice
1 Annex Street
Government Annex, 2nd Floor
Palmer, RW 33328
Counsel for Respondent
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
A) IA Report
B) Testimonies and Evidence
