IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
FOR THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
TIME2FLY,
Plaintiff
v.
TOXICCOOLING
Defendant(s).
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. RSC-CM-2319
Memorandum Opinion & Order
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant TOXICCOOLING who brings this Motion to Dismiss. On
review of the substance of the Petition, it is ordered that the Petition is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
The Ridgeway County Sheriff’s Office is a law enforcement agency that operates within
the jurisdiction of the Court. One program that the agency offers is allowing members of the
general public to ride-along with sheriff’s deputies on their general patrols within the Ridgeway
County area. Parties that are interested in a ride-along can sign up for a patrol “by contacting a
deputy in game or over Discord and simply asking them if they can provide you with one.”
Ridgeway Co. Sheriff’s Office Dept. Handbook § 102.4. The purpose of this program is to allow
everyday civilians to interact with their community’s law enforcement officers and to experience
a typical patrol in the course of a sheriff’s deputies’ duties.
Plaintiff TIME2FLY was a participant in this program and received a ride-along from
Defendant TOXICCOOLING, a sheriff’s deputy with the Ridgeway County Sheriff’s Office.
Plaintiff was not asked to waive any legal rights or acknowledge the reasonable dangers that may
be experienced in the course of the sheriff’s deputy’s patrol. Department policy does not require
any waiver for the ride-along, but does impose a number of regulations regarding how the
participant may behave in the course of the patrol and whether they may possess any firearms on
their person. Id., at § 301.1.
Some time after the patrol had started, Defendant began to patrol around the area of the
Ridgeway Parks Service administration office on Ranger Road near the City of Milton. While
stopped at the office to talk with a member of the Ridgeway Parks Service, an armed assailant
approached both the Defendant and the park ranger. The attacker killed both of them and left the
ride-along participant behind. Defendant respawned and was returning to resume the ride-along.
During that time, Plaintiff was threatened by another armed person who then was killed by
another person. Plaintiff “was traumatized from the event and required therapy.” Plaintiff’s Civil
Complaint ¶ 8.
Plaintiff sought civil damages against the Defendent for 1 R. Stat. § 3105 in the amount
of $300 and a written apology. The Government intervened in the suit because it was an action
against the official capacity of an agent of the government. 1 R. Stat. § 3206. The Government
then moved for dismissal arguing that the claim of action is barred by sovereign immunity
because the specific tort is one that cannot be construed against the government by their
immunity. 1 R. Stat. § 3206. Plaintiff contended that the suit was not in the official capacity
because it involved actions outside the legal responsibilities of the Ridgeway County Sheriff’s
Office.
LEGAL FINDINGS
1 R. Stat. § 3105 allows a person to claim monetary compensation against a negligent
party if the person bringing the action “suffers injury as a result of breach of that duty to care.”
The tort is found in Subchapter I of Chapter III of the State Code of Statutes where other private
torts can similarly be found. The Government argues that claims against the government from
this subchapter are barred by their sovereign immunity. Their argument lies in another provision
of the State Code of Statutes that 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.
“As in any case of statutory construction, our analysis begins with the language of the
statute. And where the statutory language provides a clear answer, it ends there as well.” Hughes
Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U.S. 432, 438 (1999) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted). 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.
Plaintiff argues that the immunity cannot apply because this suit involved actions that
occurred outside the statutory duties and responsibilities prescribed to the Ridgeway County
Sheriff’s Office. “Cases against an individual in official capacity as an agent of the government
shall be construed as cases against the government.” 1 R. Stat. § 3205. This case involves actions
taken in the performance of the Defendant’s duty as a sheriff’s deputy with the Ridgeway County
Sheriff’s Office and were not related to their individual private capacity. For this case to be
dissolved against the individual capacity, the Government would have to refuse defense of their
actions “if they were clearly acting in an individual capacity, or capacity that is not in line with
the laws, directives, orders, policies, or standard operating procedures of the government and its
agencies.” 1 R. Stat. § 3209. In this case, the Government has maintained its defense of the
Defendant and so the claim remains against the Defendant in their official capacity; and, by
extension, the Government.
“A waiver of sovereign immunity is to be strictly construed, in terms of its scope, in favor
of the sovereign.” Department of Army v. Blue Fox, Inc., 525 U.S. 255, 261 (1999). The
language of the statute is clear that sovereign immunity is retained in actions taken against an
agent of the government if they are done in the performance of a duty related to their office and
may only be dissolved at the decision of the Government. Though the language is clear, the
scope of review presents an even higher barrier that Plaintiff must cross to overcome the
sovereign immunity claim. When reviewing these claims of sovereign immunity, we are bound
to read in a manner most favorable to the government, according to the government.
CONCLUSION
SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED in chambers in Palmer, Ridgeway
County, this 23rd day of February 2024 that, for the foregoing reasons, the Defendant’s Motion
to Dismiss without prejudice is GRANTED.
/s/ TaxesArentAwesome
TaxesArentAwesome
Superior Court Judge
