IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
THR33SIX8
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CV-3384
Plaintiff
v.
O72YSS
Defendant
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT'S INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY
INTRODUCTION
1. I, Plaintiff thr33six8, submit this response, which can be seen as a motion to quash the
defendant's motion to dismiss the defendant's individual capacity, without counsel.
REASONING AND GROUNDS
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY IS NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT LOST
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY
1. In Pearson v. Callahan (555 U.S. 223 (2009), Justice Alito wrote for the unanimous
majority that "[t]he doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials 'from
liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established
statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' (citing
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800, 818 (1982)).
2. Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials
accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from
harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably."
3. Justice Alito then writes that "[t]he protection of qualified immunity applies regardless of
whether the government official’s error is 'a mistake of law, a mistake of fact, or a
mistake based on mixed questions of law and fact.'1 Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U. S. 551, 567
(2004) (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (citing Butz v. Economou, 438 U. S. 478, 507 (1978))
4. The per curiam opinion of Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7 (2015) was quoted by the
defense in their motion when they wrote that "qualified immunity protects 'all but the
plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law'" (citing Malley v. Briggs,
475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)).
5. The adjective "plain" is defined by Merriam-Webster at sense 4a1 as "evident to the mind
or senses," with the adjective obvious next to that sense.
6. This definition of plain is consistent with its use in cases where the Fourth Amendment is
at issue, and here is one case that uses this definition:
a. In the Washington v. Chrisman, 455 U.S. 1 (1985) syllabus, it is held that "[t]he
Fourth Amendment did not prohibit the seizure of the contraband discovered [that
was discovered by the police officer] in plain view in the room [of the
defendant]."
7. The verb "(to) seize" is defined by Merriam-Webster at sense 3, subsense b, as "to take
prisoner," with the verb "(to) arrest" next to it. The sense 3b definition of the verb "(to)
seize" does not mean it's the only use of the verb. The verb "(to) arrest" has the context of
taking someone in custody by the authorities.
8. The defense writes, "[t]he Defendant's actions do not reach the threshold of plain
incompetence or a knowing violation of the law. Put simply, a reasonable official would
not be expected to understand that executing a seemingly outstanding arrest warrant,
which was duly issued by a court of law, would violate one of [my] rights."
1 In Pearson and Butz, this is in parentheses: "noting that qualified immunity covers 'mere mistakes in judgment,
whether the mistake is one of fact or one of law.'"
9. The question implied there is now this: was the defendant being incompetent or knowing
he was violating the law?
10. The adjective "incompetent" is defined by Merriam-Webster at sense 1a as "lacking the
qualities needed for effective action." It is also defined at sense 1b as "unable to function
properly."
11. The adjective "negligent" is defined by Merriam-Webster at sense 2 as "marked by a
carelessly easy manner," defined at sense 1b as "failing to exercise the care expected of a
reasonably prudent person in like circumstances," and defined at sense 1a as "marked by
or given to neglect especially habitually or culpably." Two of the synonyms
Merriam-Webster gives for this adjective are "careless" and "lax," and the latter is written
by Merriam-Webster as "[implying] a blameworthy lack of strictness, severity, or
precision."
12. I wrote in my complaint, "Defendant o72yss was speaking in lowercase while I was with
him, and with contractions, phrasing, and grammar that is seen in colloquial English and
English that is spoken online."
13. The roster of the Palmer Police Department (hereinafter "PPD") has a code of conduct
(hereinafter "code") that lists violations of said code of conduct and of PPD's Standard
Operating Procedures (hereinafter "SOP," plural in construction). Each written policy on
the code has a level of severity from one to four, a section in the code of conduct and a
section from the SOP (if applicable), a note that explains what the violation is, and a
punishment for each time that said policy is violated. A policy in the code is in two
groups, "general policy violations" (hereinafter GPV, plurality varies) and "officer
responsibility violations." (hereinafter "ORV," plurality varies) An example of a policy on
the code is "Violation of a special order," which is noted as "violating specific temporary
directives issued by the Office of the Chief, known as special orders," is in GPV, is code
§ 1.01, and is SOP § 104.4.
14. PPD roster § 1.11 is "violation of on-duty standards," and it's noted there, "Violations of
SOP 205.2 'On-Duty Standards' which includes performing any series of
unprofessionalism, disrespect, immaturity, [and] failing to enforce the law…"
15. I wrote in my complaint, "Right before [the Defendant o72yss] booked me, he said 'bye
sir[.]'" The use of an honorific contrasts what happened before: he was acting informally.
This suggests sarcasm, and that can be seen as disrespect.
16. It can be inferred from what is written that the Defendant o72yss was incompetent
because he was unprofessional and used sarcasm to insult me, but incompetency is
stronger than unprofessionalism. There is not enough written here to say the Defendant
o72yss was incompetent, but there is enough written here to say the Defendant o72yss
was unprofessional.
17. I wrote when I was writing the tort of official misconduct in my complaint, "The
[d]efendant used physical force to arrest me, and I was cooperative. The force was not
required to arrest me; it was not warranted. The force and reaction from the [d]efendant
to arrest me does not match my behavior to anyone, so the force and reaction from
o72yss violate the Use of Force Model (abbreviated UoFM, aka Use of Force Continuum,
abbreviated UoFC)."
18. PPD roster § 2.07 is "unnecessary use of force," and it notes, "[u]sing force that is not
appropriate to the situation as taught by LETC or failing to use proper de-escalation
tactics."
19. I have a right against unreasonable search and seizure and I have a right of due process of
liberty, life, and property. The arresting (i.e., how the Defendant o72yss was arresting me
at the traffic stop) was unreasonable because I was being arrested by the defendant with
unreasonable use of force. It's expected that PPD officers know the UoFM and the rights
of the people.
20. The Defendant o72yss has the knowledge of how UoFM and constitutional rights can be
violated. The Defendant o72yss is held to a higher standard than his PPD subordinates
because he is the captain of the Field Support Bureau.
21. Since the arresting violated the Fourth Amendment right to freedom of unreasonable
search and seizure and the Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of life, liberty,
and property, the Defendant o72yss violated the law.
22. Since the defendant was unprofessional, disrespectful, the arresting violated rights, and
the Defendant is held to a higher standard than his subordinates, Defendant o72yss'
behavior can be seen as incompetent. If this is taken to stricter standards than which I
applied in this motion, his behavior can be seen as plainly incompetent.
23. If Defendant o72yss' behavior is seen as plainly incompetent, he will lose his qualified
immunity claim to deprivation of rights and/or official misconduct because "qualified
immunity protects 'all but the plainly incompetent2 or those who knowingly violate the
law.'" Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7 (2015) (citing Malley v. Briggs, 475 U. S. 335, 341
(1986)).
24. If the arresting by the Defendant o72yss is seen as violating law, he will lose his qualified
immunity claim to deprivation of rights and/or official misconduct because he knowingly
violated the law.
25. I say the Defendant o72yss' behavior is (in hindsight) and was (when the arresting was
happening) plainly incompetent and the Defendant o72yss' arresting violated the law.
2 When an adjective is used as a noun (e.g., the smart), it usually refers to people that repeat things that are that
adjective (e.g., the smart do smart things). I am not implying that the Defendant o72yss is an incompetent man.
26. Therefore, the Defendant o72yss loses qualified immunity.
27. Therefore, the Defendant o72yss can be sued in his individual capacity for deprivation of
rights under color of law.
CONCLUSION
1. The presiding judge may rule on their understanding and reasoning, the reasoning and
grounds that I have written in this motion, or any reasoning that the judge can make from
this motion.
Respectfully Submitted,
Plaintiff thr33six8
/s/ thr33six8
