STATE OF RIDGEWAY
COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
JUSTTHEJUDGE1,
Plaintiff(s),
v.
THEORIGINASHERIFTOM,
Defendant(s).
Case Number: RSC-CV-3340
Presiding: Hon. ArthurSprings
MOTION TO DISMISS
MOTION TO DISMISS
DEFENDANT, TheOriginalSheriftom, by and through the undersigned counsel, submits this
motion in the above-entitled matter, pursuant to Rid. R. Civ. P.12 (a), and moves the court to
dismiss this action with prejudice. Attached hereto and herewith is a memorandum of law in
support of the motion to dismiss.
August 8, 2024 Respectfully submitted,
MatthewSandringham
Counsel of Record
Clarke, Feelings & Associates, LLP.
Managing Partner
R. Bar. No. 16103
Attorney for Plaintiff
LAW OFFICES OF CLARKE, FEELINGS & ASSOCIATES, LLP.
- 1 -
STATE OF RIDGEWAY
COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
JUSTTHEJUDGE1,
Plaintiff(s),
v.
THEORIGINALSHERIFTOM,
Defendant(s).
Case Number: RSC-CV-3340
Presiding: Hon. ArthurSprings
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
DEFENDANT, TheOriginalSherifTom, by and through the undersigned counsel, submits this
memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion to dismiss.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On the 29th of July 2024, Plaintiff filed suit against the Defendant citing him for
Negligence and Official Misconduct. On the 30th of July 2024, the Plaintiff amended their civil
complaint to drop the official misconduct charge, and instead just pursue the Negligence claim.
Plaintiff pleads that the Defendant acted negligently in his response to an incident.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
To survive a Rule 12(a)(5) dismissal motion, the court must assess whether the complaint
“contains sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.’” xLazerify v. StudsPerSeconds, 1 Rid, 101, 109 (2023), (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556,
U.S. 662, 678 (2009), Bell Atlantic Company v. Twombly, 550, U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). For the
court to accept that the complaint has facial plausibility the plaintiff must plead “factual content”
that allows the court to draw inferences.
When assessing “factual content”, the court must acknowledge that a “mere formulaic
recitation of a cause of action will not do”, Twombly, ibid.
When there is no showing of “facial plausibility” the court should order dismissal. NZ0T
v. 1uPscout, et al., RSC-CV-2889. When this is the case, the dismissal should be with prejudice -
for the court shall treat the dismissal for failure to state a claim as a “judgment on the merits”,
Plant v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 229 (1995).
ARGUMENTS
I. FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED
When we look at this civil complaint for negligence, we must assess its facial plausibility,
and whether there is enough factual content to sustain the allegations. In this case, we can
unequivocally state that there is not enough factual content, nor facial plausibility to say that the
Plaintiff has stated a claim for which relief can be granted. In order to sustain a claim for
Negligence, the Plaintiff must prove a) the Defendant owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff, b) the
LAW OFFICES OF CLARKE, FEELINGS & ASSOCIATES, LLP.
- 2 -
Defendant broke that duty of care, and c) the Plaintiff became injured as a result of that breach of
duty.
In this civil complaint, we can see in paragraph 5 that the Plaintiff and his attorney
simply state that the Defendant “owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff”, not stating exactly how he
owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff. If we move to the cause of actions section, the Plaintiff
restates that same phrase. At no point, does the Plaintiff expand on how there was a duty of care,
and through that duty how it was breached.
Further to this point, we can see in the Cause of Actions section of the Complaint that the
Plaintiff paraphrases the statute, in which the Supreme Court on multiple occasions has warned
that a “mere formulaic recitation of the statute will not do”.
II. PEACE OFFICERS DO NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO THE PLAINTIFF
Should the court find that the Plaintiff has Stated a claim, we can then move on to how
the Plaintiff has improperly pleaded that the Defendant owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff.
Law Enforcement Officers do not hold a general duty of care to the general public,
DeShaney v. Winnebago City. DSS, 489 U.S. 189 (1989). As such, the Defendant cannot be held
liable for Negligence, as there was no duty of care to breach.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court should dismiss this complaint with prejudice and
release the Defendant from these allegations.
August 8, 2024 Respectfully submitted,
MatthewSandringham
Counsel of Record
Clarke, Feelings & Associates, LLP.
Associate Attorney
R. Bar. No. 16103
Attorney for Plaintiff
LAW OFFICES OF CLARKE, FEELINGS & ASSOCIATES, LLP.
- 3 -
STATE OF RIDGEWAY
COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
JUSTTHEJUDGE1,
Plaintiff(s),
v.
THEORIGINALSHERIFTOM,
Defendant(s).
Case Number: RSC-CV-3340
Presiding: Hon. ArthurSprings
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
TAKE NOTICE, I, MatthewSandringham, do hereby certify that a copy of this document and
the contents thereof has, on August 8th, 2024, been served upon the opposing parties of the
above-entitled matter and all proceedings within.
August 8, 2024 So serviced,
MatthewSandringham
Counsel of Record
Clarke, Feelings & Associates, LLP.
Associate Attorney
R. Bar. No. 16103
Attorney for Plaintiff
LAW OFFICES OF CLARKE, FEELINGS & ASSOCIATES, LLP.
- 4 -
