STATE OF RIDGEWAY
Hitherwguys )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CV-2305
JUDGE. HON. TaxesArentAwesome
MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff
v.
theburnerphone
&
The State of Ridgeway
(with respect to county 1 only)
Defendants
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
Following the submission of an amended complaint, the State of Ridgeway asserted its
right to intervene in this matter 1 R. Stat. § 3208 for the express and limited purpose of invoking
sovereign immunity to quash the first claim. We now do so.
The tort under which Plaintiff brings suit is found in Subchapter I of Chapter III of the
State Code of Statutes where other private torts can similarly be found. However, the
government is “immune from all claims except those in this section, and later laws in which
liability is explicitly created against the government.” 1 R. Stat. § 3203. That provision is found
in Subchapter II of Chapter III of the State Code of Statutes.“Looking at the language of the
statute, it is patently clear that the sovereign immunity extends to all claims outside of that
subsection unless a clear waiver is given in a later law to another cause of action that may be
held against the government. The specific cause of action that Plaintiff brings in this case is one
that falls outside of the waiver given. On that front alone, this claim cannot be brought forward.”
Time2FIy v. ToxicCooling, RSC-CV-2319 (2024).
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.
Although Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant lacked probable cause when arresting the
Plaintiff and that Plaintiff is knowledgeable about the necessity for probable cause, Plaintiff
never states that the Defendant knew at the time that there was no probable cause. Indeed,
assume that all the facts pleaded are taken as true: Plaintiff is knowledgeable about the necessity
of probable cause but lacked it here. That is insufficient to warrant relief. Plaintiff would have to
have known at the time that there was no probable cause. Since that critical allegation is missing,
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
Both causes of action must be dismissed: the first on the basis of sovereign immunity; the
second for failure to state a claim.
/s/ totoro987123
Deputy Solicitor General
Department of Justice
Counsel of Record
Dated: February 28th, 2024
