STATE OF RIDGEWAY
SUPERIOR COURT OF
RIDGEWAY COUNTY
HITHERWGUYS,
Plaintiff.
v.
THEBURNERPHONE,
Defendants.
CASE NO. RSC-CV-2305
Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff Hitherwguys, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby submits this opposition to
Defendant theburnerphone's Motion to Dismiss.
INTRODUCTION
1. The Defendants request to have the case dismissed questions the adequacy of the
Plaintiffs claims, regarding whether the Plaintiff has shown that the Defendant knew his
actions were unauthorized a crucial aspect of the official misconduct allegation, under 1
R. Stat. § 3114. This argument asserts that when looking at the Complaint as a whole and
in favor of the Plaintiff it does present details to prove each element required for a
misconduct charge meeting the standards set in Ashcroft v. Iqbal 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and
Bell Atlantic Corp. V. Twombly 550 U.S. 544 (2007).
2. The plaintiff agrees that the first cause of action is foreclosed by Sovereign Immunity as a
result of the government intervening
ARGUMENT
3. The legal rules overseeing the assessment of a motion to dismiss stipulate that a
complaint needs to include details assumed to be true, in order to present a plausible
claim for relief. In the case of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly 550 U.S. 544 (2007), the
Supreme Court established the requirement that a claim must be facially plausible to
withstand a motion to dismiss. The Court clarified that factual assertions should be
sufficient to elevate a right to relief beyond speculation necessitating more than
possibilities for supporting a claim. In Ashcroft v. Iqbal 556 U.S. 662 (2009) the Court
further defined this criterion by stating that a complaint must consist of information
accepted as true to assert a plausible claim for relief on its face. The Court stressed that
while the plausibility standard does not demand certainty to a 'probability requirement' it
does necessitate more than possibility of unlawful actions, by a defendant.
4. In this situation the Complaint tells a clear story about what happened leading up to the
Plaintiffs arrest and the charges that followed. It emphasizes how the Defendants actions
which were said to be without cause, did not follow established legal standards and
procedures. Specifically the Complaint claims that the Defendant, acting as a State
Trooper made an arrest and searched a vehicle without having a valid reason to do so
essentially overstepping his official duties.
5. The Plaintiffs claims go further than saying there was no probable cause; they suggest
that the Defendant, being a law enforcement officer, with training and experience knew
or should have known the legal limits of his actions. This suggestion comes from the
retelling of the incidents and the particular steps taken by the Defendant, which when
looked at together give a reasonable basis to believe that the Defendant was aware of the
wrongful nature of his actions.
6. In the case of Erickson v. Pardus 551 U.S. 89 (2007), the Supreme Court upheld the view
that a complaint should include more than basic labels and conclusions without requiring
intricate factual details. The Plaintiffs Complaint goes beyond assertions by outlining the
incidents and exchanges that led to the Plaintiffs arrest providing a factual backdrop from
which one could reasonably deduce the Defendants awareness of the inappropriateness of
his conduct. In the subsequent case, the Supreme Court underscored the leniency of the
pleading standard, stating that a document filed pro se is “to be liberally construed,” and
“however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.” While the present Complaint was not filed pro se, the
Erickson decision highlights the Court’s broader directive to interpret pleadings to do
substantial justice, indicating that the Plaintiff’s allegations should be afforded a generous
reading.
7. In addition, in line with the guidelines outlined in the Lexmark Int’l, Inc. V. Static Control
Components Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (2014) the Court emphasized the significance of a
plaintiff presenting information to allow for a reasonable assumption of the defendants
liability, for the alleged wrongdoing. This criterion doesn't mandate that a plaintiff proves
their case at the pleading stage but demands enough specifics to inform the defendant
about the nature and basis of the claim. In this scenario the Complaint fulfills this criteria
by providing an account of the Defendants actions and their context thus enabling them to
understand the accusations and adequately prepare their defense.
8. The case of Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (2007), reinforces
the need to consider the entire context of the allegations when evaluating a motion to
dismiss. The Supreme Court stated, “The inquiry is holistic: The factual allegations must
be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all
the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).”
9. Furthermore, Moore v. C. O. Ry. Co., 291 U.S. 205 (1934) highlights the importance of
ensuring that a legal complaint includes all aspects of a claim. The Plaintiffs account
thoroughly covers the elements of misconduct, by officials as outlined in state laws
leaving no details unexplored.
CONCLUSION
10. The comprehensive factual allegations contained within the Complaint, when construed
in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff and under the holistic inquiry mandated by
Tellabs, sufficiently articulate a plausible claim for official misconduct. The Plaintiff’s
detailed account of the events, the legal standards articulated by the Supreme Court, and
the reasonable inferences drawn from the alleged facts collectively satisfy the pleading
requirements established by Twombly and Iqbal.
11. Accordingly, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny the Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss the Second Cause of Action, allowing the case to proceed to discovery
where the full dimensions of the Defendant’s knowledge and conduct can be explored.
Date: 02/29/2024
/s/
Xiqaq
Associate
Clarke and Associate LLP
Counsel of Record
Attorney for Plaintiff
