Rendered from the court's authenticated repository
Searchable full text
8,127 characters extracted
—
DEFENSE MOTION TO DISMISS - 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
insertreality
Deputy Solicitor General
Ridgeway Department of Justice
Email: [email protected]
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
Activated113,
Plaintiff,
vs.
canyoudrown, in his quasi-official capacity as a
City of Palmer Police Officer,
Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: No. RSC-CV-3038
DEFENSE MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM WHICH UPON
RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED
COMES NOW, Defendant canyoudrown, through undersigned counsel, hereby submits their
motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Civil Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted through Rid. Civ. Pro. R. 12(a)(5) and 28(b)(2).
INTRODUCTION
On the 11th of June 2024, Plaintiff was standing, idly, in the center of a crosswalk near the
Ridgeway National Guard recruitment building in the City of Palmer. By doing so, Plaintiff was forcing
vehicles to go around them, and deviate from normal traffic patterns to attempt to give way to the
Plaintiff. Motorist were forced to do so, under state law. Thus, Plaintiff was forcing motorist to deviate
from following the normal flow of traffic because of their presence in the road.
As Plaintiff continued to stand in the crosswalk, Defendant observed Plaintiff. Defendant seeing
this potentional violation of the state traffic code, contacted the Plaintiff. Plaintiff and Defendant moved
to the sidewalk to speak, which is when Plaintiff was issued a citation by Defendant for violating Title 7,
Section 23 of the Ridgeway Vehicle Code.
DEFENSE MOTION TO DISMISS - 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BACKGROUND
The Defendant is a sworn and state-certified Police Officer, who was at the time of the alleged
incident employed with the City of Palmer Police Department. The Defendant has since resigned from
the Palmer Police Department. The City of Palmer Police Department has the responsibility of enforcing
all state laws and city ordinances within the jurisdictional limitations of the City of Palmer. See 6 R.
Stat. § 3103 and 6 R. Stat. § 3108. To become a state-certified Police Officer, and serve with the Palmer
Police Department as one, employees must complete and obtain a Law Enforcement Training Center
certificate. To obtain such a certificate, one must complete multiple phases of training which includes,
but is not limited to, instruction on the various legal standards required to detain, arrest, and cite
someone. The Defendant completed such training and was subsequently issued a certification and hired
by the Palmer Police Department.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A motion to dismiss under Rid. Civ. Pro. R. 12(a)(5) and 28(b)(2) should be granted when it
appears beyond doubt “that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would
entitle him to relief.” See Blackburn v. City of Marshall, 42 F.3d 925, 931 (5th Cir. 1995). Although this
court may accept the well-pleaded factual allegations of the complaint as true, “conclusory allegations or
legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss.”
See Fernandez-Montes v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 987 F.2d 278, 284 (5th Cir. 1993). The ultimate question
when deciding if a Plaintiff has stated a claim which upon relief can be granted, is if the complainant
states a valid cause of action when it is viewed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff and with every
doubt resolved in favor of the Plaintiff. See Lowrey v. Texas A&M University System, 117 F.3d 242, 247
(5th Cir. 1997). However, this court is not strained to find inferences favorable to the Plaintiff and is not
to accept conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions, or legal conclusions. See R2 Invs. LDC v.
Phillips, 401 F.3d 638, 642 (5th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). The court does not evaluate the
Plaintiff’s likelihood of success; instead, it only determines whether the Plaintiff has a legally
cognizable claim. See United States ex rel. Riley v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Hosp., 355 F.3d 370, 376 (5th
Cir. 2004).
DEFENSE MOTION TO DISMISS - 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF COMPLAINT IS SELF-CONTRADICTORY AND FAILS UNDER RULE 12 AND
RULE 28
Plaintiff in their complaint attempts to imply that because a vehicle passed Plaintiff, that
Plaintiff was not in violation of R.C.C § 7.23. Someone who: (1) intentionally prevents motor vehicles
from passing freely along a roadway and or (2) hinders the regular flow of traffic is guilty of R.C.C §
7.23, “Obstruction of Traffic”. See R.C.C § 7.23. Plaintiff contest that they did not meet the elements
required for Defendant to cite Plaintiff for that offense, and as such, that constitutes official misconduct.
Plaintiff in their complaint admit that they were “standing roughly in the middle of a marked
crosswalk near the RNG Recruitment Center in Palmer […]”. See Plaintiff Civil Complaint 1. Plaintiff’s
argument here rest on a misapplication of the law. Someone is guilty of “Obstruction of Traffic” even
when they merely hinder the regular flow of traffic. Ibid. Emphasis added. Merriam-Webster defines
“hinder” as “[to] delay, impede, or prevent action”. See Merriam-Webster Dictionary, word “hinder”.
Sure, a vehicle may have been able to pass, but even viewing this from the position most favorable for
the Plaintiff, as required, and considering the definition of “hinder”, Plaintiff’s presence in the crosswalk
caused both the unnamed driver and Defendant to be delayed, their normal travel path impeded, even if
it was by an inch, the Plaintiff did violate R. C. C. § 7.23. See Lowrey, 117 F.3d 242, 247 (5th Cir.
1997) and Plaintiff Civil Complaint 1-6. That delay and hinderance is the entire reason why Plaintiff
was cited, because from the perspective of the Defendant at the time, his conduct fit the statutory
requirements of “Obstruction of Traffic”. Ibid.
The court must also consider the perspective of the Defendant, who was an on-duty Police
Officer at the time. See Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 188, 110 S.Ct. 2793, 111 L.Ed.2d 148 (1990)
cited in Moreno v. Baca, 431 F.3d 633, 639 (9th Cir. 2005). The Defendant observed a random
individual, for no apparent reason, intentionally loitering in a crosswalk, hindered his and another
motorist ability to navigate the intersection in a regular manner prescribed by law. As such, Defendant
acted within the scope of their duties as a Police Officer and addressed the violation of law.
Applying the standard of review in this matter, by Plaintiff’s own statement in their complaint,
the conduct of Defendant does not give rise to a claim, as the Defendant was engaged in lawful conduct,
DEFENSE MOTION TO DISMISS - 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
which fall within the scope of their duties. Thus, this court cannot award relief under the precedent set
and reviewed herein. Ibid.
As for Plaintiff’s argument that because Plaintiff did not completely prevent vehicles from
passing by them, that their conduct does not violate § 7.23, that assertion is simply put, false for all the
reasons listed herein.
CONCLUSIONS
For all the aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff has failed to establish that they are entitled to relief
in this matter. By Plaintiff’s own admission, Plaintiff was in violation of R.C.C § 7.23, and because of
Plaintiff violating R.C.C § 7.23, they were cited, this does not state a claim which upon this court can
issue relief, and thus, fails under Rid. Civ. Pro. R. 12(a)(5) and 28(b)(2).
Defendant, for all the reasons listed herein, humbly request this court to dismiss Plaintiff’s Civil
Complaint, with prejudice, as required by Federated Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Moitie. See Federated Dep't
Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 399 n. 3, 101 S.Ct. 2424, 69 L.Ed.2d 103 (1981), cited in Uduko v.
Finch, Case No. 14-cv- 11041, 3 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 24, 2016).
Dated this 21st day of June 2024
insertreality
Deputy Solicitor General
Ridgeway Department of
Justice
Document record
File size
157.4 KB
Uploaded
Jun 14, 2024 12:00 PM
Filed
Jun 14, 2024 12:00 PM
Filing code
COMPLAINT
Uploaded by
activated113
Notes
Activated113 v. canyodrown Motion to Dismiss.pdf — archived from the Trello docket (https://trello.com/c/4z5p406W)
