STATE OF RIDGEWAY
Hitherwguys
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CV-2305
JUDGE. HON. TaxesArentAwesome
MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff
v.
theburnerphone
Defendant
MOTION TO DISMISS
The State of Ridgeway, on behalf of Defendant theburnerphone, respectfully submits this
motion to dismiss. This motion to dismiss shall serve as a response to the plaintiff’s civil
complaint, as is permitted by Rid R. Civ. P. 12.
INTRODUCTION
The court must dismiss the first cause of action on the basis of sovereign immunity. The
court must dismiss the second cause of action for failure to state a cognizable claim.
ARGUMENT
1. THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION IS FORECLOSED BY SOVEREIGN
IMMUNITY
A State “cannot be sued in its own courts without its consent.” Railroad Co. v. Tennessee,
101 U. S. 337, 339 (1880); this is the foundational principle of sovereign immunity. This means
that unless a state waives their sovereign immunity, they may not be subject to litigation in the
courts of their own state, this principle is ingrained in our system of government. §2.2(b) of the
Rid. Civil Claims Act (2022) provides that “the government is immune from all suits except
those in this section, and in later laws in which liability is explicitly created.”
Where a Plaintiff is silent on the capacity of the Defendant, and the Defendant is being
sued for actions taken in their official capacity, this court should “interpret the complaint as
including only official-capacity claims.” Egerdahl v. Hibbing Community College, 72 F. 3d 6151
(8th Cir. 1995). Here, these conditions are satisfied and, consequently, the court should construe
this case as an official capacity action. Official capacity suits are suits against the government.
See Kentucky v. Graham, 472 U.S. 159, 165-6 (1985) (holding that “official-capacity suit is, in
all respects other than name, to be treated as a suit against the entity.”). Indeed, “[c]ases against
an individual in their official capacity as an agent of the government shall be construed as cases
against the government.” Civil Claims Act §2(d).
Therefore, in order for the plaintiff in this case to bring suit against the government in this
case, he must establish that the state has waived its sovereign immunity with respect to his 1 R.
Stat. § 3104 False Imprisonment claim. It is well settled that this tort does not create liability
against the government. See Removelungs v. Ethhaqn, RSC-CV-494 (in which the court
dismissed a claim of "false imprisonment" because the tort did not specifically create liability on
the government's behalf). Therefore the government shall enjoy immunity in regard to this cause
of action. Since this is an official capacity suit, but the State has not waived its sovereign
immunity, the first cause of action must be dismissed.
2. THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION MUST BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO
STATE A CLAIM
When faced with a motion to dismiss, this court must “assume the veracity” of
well-pleaded allegations. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 US 662 (2009). Allegations are “well-pleaded”
when the “factual allegations … raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the
assumption that all of the complaint's allegations are true.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
US 544 (2007). If these factual allegations, assumed as true, do not support a claim for relief, the
suit must be dismissed.
In order for a claim to proceed under a 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, supra).
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).
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
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 to allege anything, factual or
conclusory, in relation to the third element of official misconduct. Therefore, having failed to
allege every element of the aforementioned cause of action, the Plaintiff's suit is not “plausible
on [its] face” and, as such, it must be dismissed. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, supra
CONCLUSION
In regard to the first cause of action, no explicit liability exists against the government in
this matter, subsequently, the defendant cannot be held liable in his capacity as a government
agent, as is prescribed by law. In regard to the second cause of action, the plaintiff has failed to
state a cognizable claim. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, this case must be dismissed.
/s/ EffortlessBrit
Solicitor General
Department of Justice
Counsel of Record
/s/ totoro987123
Deputy Solicitor General
Department of Justice
Dated: February 17th, 2024
