SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
TheIceShifter
Plaintiff
v.
Nz0t
Defendant
_______________________________________/
Case No. RSC-CV-2817
Presiding: Hon. Derogatoryyy
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
BACKGROUND
The Plaintiff summoned the Defendant on May 10, 2024, and he appeared willingly. The
Defendant retained counsel rather quickly and filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May
16, 2024, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for and for a lack of
standing. The Plaintiff then filed a response to the motion to dismiss on May 17, 2024.
DISCUSSION
For a Plaintiff to successfully bring a claim to a court the Plaintiff must allege facts that,
if accepted as true, are sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level” and to
“state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555, 570 (2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009). To establish the
“facial plausibility” required to “unlock the doors of discovery,” the Plaintiff cannot rely on
“legal conclusions” or “[threadbare] recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” but, instead,
the Plaintiff must plead “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference
that the Defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 678-79.
The Plaintiff pleads that “On or around May 9th, 2024, The Plaintiff’s cash transfer van
was stuck on a road barrier in a tunnel near Palmer, The defendant Nz0t would ask the co-
defendant SuperCyber for a melee to Assault and Batter the Plaintiff into exiting their vehicle to
gain access to the money in the cash-in transit van.” See Plaintiff’s Complaint at ¶ 3. The
Plaintiff further pleads that the “Defendant would cause the Plaintiff to exit their vehicle which
prompts the Plaintiff to act in self-defence when the Plaintiff was seriously injured by the
Defendant Nz0t, which caused the Defendant SuperCyber to kill the Plaintiff using a Police-
Issued M2 Stetson, causing the Plaintiff to lose a Stetson Cardiac-5, including three boxes, each
containing thirty rounds. See Plaintiff’s Complaint at ¶ 4. These are factual allegations, and the
court is required to accept them as true.
When the Plaintiff referred to the Defendant Nz0t asking the co-defendant for a “melee”
the court will interpret this as the Nz0t asking supercyber for a melee weapon because the
Plaintiff later pleads that the Defendant Nz0t used this weapon to assault and batter the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff further pleads that defendant Nz0t shot and killed the Plaintiff with a Barrage 1014
and struck the Plaintiff with a crowbar multiple times which was uninvited physical contact
which caused reasonable fear or apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact.
The Ridgeway State Code of Statutes codifies both the assault and the battery torts
separately. “Any individual who brings unconsented harmful or offensive contact against another
person is battery[.]” See 1 R. Stat. § 3102. The Plaintiff pleads the actions that caused harmful or
offensive contact and pleaded that there was a harmful or offensive contact. Moreover, “Any
individual who intentionally and voluntarily caused reasonable apprehension of an immediate
harmful or offensive contact is assault[.]” See 1 R. Stat. § 3103. The Plaintiff pleaded that the
actions constituted an voluntary and intentional infliction of reasonable apprehension of an
immediate or offensive contact and pleaded that such apprehension existed as a result of the
Defendant’s conduct.
The Plaintiff further pleaded that “On or around May 9th, 2024[,] Defendant Nz0t stole
the Plaintiff’s possessions without legal reason or justification after they killed the Plaintiff and
stole three boxes, each containing thirty rounds.” See Plaintiff’s Complaint at ¶ 22. It is codified
that “Any individual who wrongfully takes another's personal property without legal reason or
justification is trover” which the Plaintiff not only pleads by elements but also pleads the actions
which constituted a violation of this statute. See 1 R. Stat. § 3113. As for the fifth cause of
action, the Plaintiff sufficiently provided factual allegations to support it which are appended
above.
In order to invoke a court's jurisdiction, the plaintiff must demonstrate, at an "irreducible
minimum," that: (1) he/she has suffered a distinct and palpable injury as a result of the putatively
illegal conduct of the defendant; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct; and
(3) it is likely to be redressed if the requested relief is granted. See Valley Forge Christian
College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982);
Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 99 (1979); Simon v. Eastern Kentucky
Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U.S. 26, 37 (1976). To examine the complaint for purposes of
ruling on a motion to dismiss for want of standing, both the trial and reviewing courts must
accept as true all material allegations of the complaint and must construe the complaint in favor
of the complaining party. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) (E.g., Jenkins v. McKeithen,
395 U. S. 411, 421-422 (1969)).
The Plaintiff has suffered an injury under state law which is distinct and palpable as a
result of the alleged putatively illegal conduct of the Defendant when the Defendants both
allegedly killed the Plaintiff without legal cause of justification and caused his ammunition and
other personal property to be lost.
The losses and injuries happened as a result of both Defendant’s alleged putatively illegal
conduct which is certainly traceable back to said injuries. The statutes revolving around all of the
cases of action delegate a maximum amount of relief the court has the authority to grant in the
event of liability being found in violation of said statutes. The court has the authority to issue
relief in this case and therefore this court can redress these injuries.
It is for these foregoing reasons that on this 19th day of May 2024, the court hereby
DENIES the Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.
SO ORDERED
Derogatoryyy
Magistrate Judge
Ridgeway Superior Court
