Ridgeway Unified Courts

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF RIDGEWAY

Searchable full text

12,234 characters extracted

—

————————————————————————————— IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY ————————————————————————————— WHERESPIZZA_YT, an individual, Plaintiff, v. TACTICALDANKPATRIOT, State Trooper in the Ridgeway State Police, in his official capacity; -and- RIDGEWAY STATE POLICE, Defendants. Civil Action for Impeding Right To Due Process (1 R. Stat. 3201) No. RSC-CV-2874 ———————————————— ORIGINAL CIVIL COMPLAINT ———————————————— TOBY & ASSOCIATES LEGAL FIRM Tobyrulles4568, Esq. (RSB #26104) Managing Partner Josef13344, Esq. (RSB #21109)* Partner S_tems, Esq. (RSB #25105) Partner Karomsuk, Esq. (RSB #26102) Senior Associate HolyRomanRyan, Esq. (RSB #17105) Associate Samagonous, Esq. (RSB #20105) Associate StaySimple_Joshy, Esq. (RSB #25102) Associate Josef13344, Esq. (RSB #21109)* Counsel of Record AlexJCabot, Esq. (RSB #17128)* Co-Counsel of Record i. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page NATURE OF THE ACTION ......................................................................................................... 1 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ......................................................................................................... 1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE .................................................................................................... 3 PARTIES ........................................................................................................................................ 3 CAUSE OF ACTION .................................................................................................................... 4 PRAYER FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................................. 5 - ii. ————————————————————————————— IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY ————————————————————————————— WHERESPIZZA_YT, an individual, Plaintiff, v. TACTICALDANKPATRIOT, State Trooper in the Ridgeway State Police, in his official capacity; -and- RIDGEWAY STATE POLICE, Defendants. Civil Action for Impeding Right To Due Process (1 R. Stat. 3201) No. RSC-CV-2874 NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. No person can be subjected to punishment for actions that a reasonable person could not have anticipated would result in said punishment. Due process requires that every penal law delineate the conduct it prohibits and the consequences of violating a given criminal provision. This lawsuit is brought to curtail the Ridgeway State Police’s enforcement of law that falls short of the latter requirement. Section 5, subsection 5.1(a) of the Comprehensive Firearms Act criminalizes possession and usage of fully automatic and high capacity firearms without an Advanced Firearms License but the Act fails to state with sufficient clarity the consequences of violating this provision. Subsection 5.1(a) is inherently unconstitutional under the notice requirements of due process and this Court should enjoin its enforcement. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS1 2. On May 11, 2024, Plaintiff Wherespizza_yt (“Plaintiff”) was sitting in a passenger seat of 1 The allegations contained under this heading are chronologically ordered. - 1 - a motor vehicle driven by XxMoneyfun21 in Sterling Heights, Ridgeway County, Ridgeway. 3. Defendant TacticalDankPatriot (“Defendant Officer”), driving an emergency vehicle behind Plaintiff and XxMoneyfun21, activated his emergency lights and siren. 4. XxMoneyfun21 shortly thereafter pulled his motor vehicle to the side of the road at 3600 Majellan Way in Sterling Heights. 5. Plaintiff and XxMoneyfun21 both exited the motor vehicle and informed Defendant Officer that they had done nothing wrong. 6. Defendant Officer handcuffed and forcibly hauled Plaintiff and XxMoneyfun21 into the back of his emergency vehicle. 7. Defendant Officer brought Plaintiff and XxMoneyfun21 to a substation of the Ridgeway County Sheriff’s Office (“station”) in Sterling Heights. 8. Defendant Officer temporarily detained Plaintiff and XxMoneyfun21 in a cell located inside the station. 9. _After around 15 minutes, Defendant Officer searched Plaintiff’s person. 10._Upon seeing that Plaintiff was in possession of a Stetson M1-A and ammunition thereof without an Advanced Firearms License, Defendant Officer issued Plaintiff a $450 fine for “Unlawful Possession of a Firearm” and released him from custody. 11._On May 16, 2024, Defendant Officer explained that the fine was issued pursuant to section 5, subsection 5.1(a) of the Comprehensive Firearms Act (the “Act”).—also known as 7 R. Stat. § 7401 (“subsection 5.1(a)”). 12._The Act states in pertinent part: “It shall be illegal to own or utilize any firearms that are capable of fully automatic fire or are high capacity without possession of an Advanced - 2 - Firearms License (AFL)” (section 5, subsection 5.1(a).) 13._Although subsection 5.1(a) defines the above conduct as “illegal,” no part of the Act sets forth with sufficient clarity the consequences of committing said conduct. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 14._This Court has original jurisdiction over this Complaint under Article V, Section IV of the Ridgeway Constitution. 15. _The Court’s jurisdiction is invoked in equity. 16._Venue is proper in this Court because the actions and omissions alleged in this Complaint occurred in the State of Ridgeway. PARTIES 17._Plaintiff Wherespizza_yt is an individual and resident of the State of Ridgeway. 18._Defendant TacticalDankPatriot is a State Trooper in the Ridgeway State Police. 19._Defendant Ridgeway State Police is a government entity. CAUSE OF ACTION Impeding Secured Rights–Right To Due Process (Fourteenth and/or Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)2 Violation of Rid. Civil Claims Act, 1 R. Stat. § 3201 Against Defendant TacticalDankPatriot in his official capacity;3 and Defendant Ridgeway State Police (Respondeat Superior)4 4 The doctrine of respondeat superior allows Plaintiff to hold the Ridgeway State Police liable for the wrongful acts of its employees. See generally W. Prosser & W. Keeton, The Law of Torts 3 See 1 R. Stat. § 3205 ("Cases against an individual in official capacity as an agent of the government shall be construed as cases against the government.") 2 The Supreme Court of Ridgeway has recognized an incorporated right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. See Proceed101 v. State of Ridgeway, 2 Rid. ___ (2023) (finding that Petitioner’s right to due process under the “Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution” was not violated at trial); see also State v. Lxnias, 1 Rid., at 502 (2022) (Jackson, J., concurring) (certain rights are "incorporated by the Constitution of the United States[,]" and a person can sue a state official for "a violation of a liberty or right ensured by the United States Constitution”); cf. LargeTitanic2, Gov. of Rid. v. Nevplaysgames, et al., 1 Rid. 98 (2023) (“[W]e have held that federal doctrines … are incorporated into our system of laws and therefore federal precedent relating to such may be used as precedent”) (emphasis added.) - 3 - 20._Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 21._Subsection 5.1(a) criminalizes the possession and usage of fully automatic and high capacity firearms without an Advanced Firearms License. However, the Act fails to state with sufficient clarity the consequences of violating this provision and is thus unconstitutional under due process. Indeed, before criminal liability may be imposed for violation of any penal law, due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires "fair warning ... of what the law intends." McBoyle v. United States, 283 U. S. 25, 27 (1931). The notice requirements of due process require that penal statutes state “with sufficient clarity” the “consequences of violating a given criminal [provision].” United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114 (1979); United States v. Evans, 333 U. S. 483 (1948); United States v. Brown, 333 U. S. 18 (1948); cf. Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U. S. 399 (1966). Defendant Officer impeded Plaintiff’s right to due process when he issued the $450 fine against them under subsection 5.1(a) because the Act fails to clearly delineate the consequences of violating the provision. 22._1 R. Stat. § 3201 provides a cause of action against the government for "[a]ny policy, order, procedure or directive that impedes on an individual’s rights, immunities, or privileges secured by law, charter, or the constitution" and authorizes as relief thereto “a permanent restraining order against the government prohibiting them from enacting this policy, order, §§ 69-70, at 499-501 (5th Ed.1984). The master-servant or employer-employee relationship is a form of agency in which the employer hires the employee to act on his or her behalf, subject to the employer's control and consent to act. General Bldg. Contractors Ass'n, 458 U.S. at 392, 102 S.Ct. at 3151. For an employer to be held vicariously liable for the intentional tort of an employee, the tort must occur within the scope of employment and be actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to further the employer's business and not be unexpected in view of the employee's duties. Weinberg v. Johnson, 518 A.2d 985, 990 (D.C. 1986); cited with approval in Floyd-Mayers v. American Cab Co., 732 F. Supp. 243 (D.D.C. 1990). In the case at bar, Defendant Officer acted within the scope of employment and in order to further the business of Defendant Ridgeway State Police in executing the laws of the legislature. - 4 - procedure, or directive[,]” and “injunctive relief reversing any harm” resulting from the same. Defendant Officer’s and Defendant Ridgeway State Police’s enforcement of subsection 5.1(a) against Plaintiff in the form of a $450 fine–despite this punishment not being clearly reflected in or otherwise authorized by the Act–constitutes actionable conduct under 1 R. Stat. § 3201 because 1) the conduct is executive; and 2) it impedes Plaintiff’s right to due process as set forth above. See e.g. State v. Lx1nas, 1. Rid. 506 (2022) (The language “policy, order, procedure, or directive” refers to “any executive action.”) 23._As a proximate result of the executive actions and/or inactions of Defendant Officer and Defendant Ridgeway State Police as set forth herein, Plaintiff has suffered concrete, non-hypothetical harm. PRAYER FOR RELIEF _____WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays as follows– _____A._ For an order declaring that subsection 5.1(a) is unconstitutional; _____B._ For an order declaring that Defendant Officer and Defendant Ridgeway State Police’s enforcement of subsection 5.1(a) impeded Plaintiff’s right to due process; _____C._ For a permanent restraining order pursuant to 1 R. Stat. § 3201 restraining Defendant Officer and Defendant Ridgeway State Police from enforcing subsection 5.1(a); _____D._ For an order vacating the $450 fine _____E._ For an order quashing any outstanding arrest warrant for failure to pay the fine; _____F._ For an order reversing any other harm resulting from the unjust conduct of Defendant Officer and Defendant Ridgeway State Police; _____G._ For such other, further, or different relief, at law or in equity, to which Plaintiff may show himself justly entitled. - 5 - DATED: May 18, 2024 Palmer, Ridgeway TOBY & ASSOCIATES LEGAL FIRM5 BY: /s/ - Josef13344, Esq. (RSB #21109) Counsel of Record Palmer Apartments, Suite 5B Palmer, Ridgeway, RW Tel.: (430) 946-8594 Fax: (753) 632-2442 E-mail: [email protected] BY: /s/AlexJCabot - AlexJCabot, Esq. (RSB #17128) Co-Counsel of Record Palmer Apartments, Suite 5B Palmer, Ridgeway, RW Tel.: (430) 946-8594 Fax: (753) 632-2442 E-mail: [email protected] 5 Fax numbers and e-mails contained herein cannot be used to serve pleadings, motions, or other documents. See Rid. R. Civ. P. 5(a) ("[E]very pleading subsequent to the original complaint, every paper relating to discovery required to be served upon a party, every written motion other than one which may be heard ex parte, and every written notice, notice of change of attorney, appearance, demand, brief or memorandum of law, offer of judgment, designation of record on appeal, and similar paper shall be served through proceeding communications.") - 6 -

Complaint%2C_RSC-CV-2874.pdf

Original document

Searchable full text

Document record