In the Superior Court of
the State of Ridgeway
Robin5D, HERECOMESTHEFBI,
kenneytube, NinjazAwesomes,
Plaintiff(s),
v.
Impediage, drjack0,
Defendant(s).
Case No. RSCCV3435
Brief in Opposition to State's Motion to Dis
miss in Part and In Support of Plaintiff's
Motion for Leave to Amend
Hon. Judge t1dtony
BRIEF
Plaintiff Robin5D, pro se, and representing all other listed plaintiffs (jointly as Plaintiffs
or simply Plaintiff), submits this brief in opposition to the State’s Motion to Dismiss in Part, and
in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend in the matter mentioned above.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this case on August 16th, 2024, alleging four counts of 1 R. Stat. § 3115
(Deprivation of Rights), an individual capacity claim, along with four counts of 1 R. Stat. § 3114
(Official Misconduct), an official capacity claim, against differing Defendants.
Shortly following the filing and docketing of this case, an attorney from the Ridgeway
Department of Justice was assigned by the Attorney General to represent the State in this matter.
The State, through that attorney, then intervened in the individual capacity claims as a matter of
right afforded to them by 1 R. Stat. § 2206, 2207. It also filed a motion to dismiss the individual
capacity claims under sovereign immunity (through 1 R. Stat. § 3203, U.S. Const. amend. XI).
Plaintiff made an oral brief before the court in opposition to the motion to dismiss, and
both parties were ordered to enter paper briefs. The State submitted a brief primarily based on the
arguments contained within Plaintiff’s oral brief.
ARGUMENT
The State’s brief in support of its motion to dismiss is primarily based on a legal theory
following this line of logic—
1. The State has intervened in the individual capacity claims as a matter of its right to do
so, and as a result;
2. The individual capacity claims are now in an action against the State, and sovereign
immunity applies under 1 R. Stat. § 3203.
1
Unfortunately for the State, the legal loophole it seeks to use to handwave away claims
against its officers does not survive scrutiny, and a granting of the State’s motion would transgress
the U.S. Constitution.
I. THE STATE CAN NOT USE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY AS A DEFENSE IN THIS CASE
AS IT IS PRECLUDED BY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION PER ALDEN
Most precedent regarding the sovereign immunity of states regards suits in the jurisdiction
of a federal court. However, one case stands as a chief exception among them. Alden v. Maine
guarantees the right of the states to sovereign immunity in their own courts through the Eleventh
Amendment, along with setting concrete limits on that right.
The State’s brief, other than covering moot expository research in the prior oral brief by
Plaintiff, only justifies the complete incompatibility of Alden with its motion to dismiss by stating
that the “Court ought to reject these two points of analysis,” providing no substantive reasoning
that the direct quotes from Alden should be ignored. St. Brf. Spt. Mtn. to Dis. at 2. It goes on to
call these arguments a “performative contradiction,” attempting to handwave away Alden in its
entirety. Id. In sum, the brief constitutes a botched reading and interpretation of both Alden and
Plaintiff’s oral brief.
In contrast to the State’s misguided readings, Alden provides very clear guidance as to the
limitations of sovereign immunity in a state’s own courts, as a privilege afforded to them by the
Eleventh Amendment. Sovereign immunity “does not bar all judicial review of state compliance
with the Constitution,” and “certain limits are implicit in the constitutional principle of state sov
ereign immunity.” Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 755 (1999). Furthermore, the states and their
officers are bound to uphold the Constitution. See Id.
Alden imposes two concrete limits on the power of states’ sovereign immunity in their own
courts—
1. “Sovereign immunity bars suits only in the absence of consent,” and states have gener
ally “enacted statutes consenting to a wide variety of suits.” Id. And;
2. Only extends to “suits against States but not lesser entities,” including state officers; so
long as the relief is sought against that officer and not the state. Id. at 75657.
A. The State has Consented to Suit Through Its Intervention; Inquiry Ends
The State, through it intervening in the individual capacity claims in this case, has directly
consented to suit in this matter. It has voluntarily done so under 1 R. Stat. § 2206 (state may in
tervene). The legislature has specifically afforded the State’s representation the ability to waive
sovereign immunity by consenting as a party in a suit for which it is not named as a party. By no
means is the State unconsensually partaking in this matter.
From what can be gathered of the State’s brief, it attempts to construe 1 R. Stat. § 3203 as
being so broad to allow the government to intervene in any cases it determines it has a “substan
tial interest” in, then succeedingly dismiss individual capacity claims against a State officer, for
which relief is not sought against itself, under the false banner of “sovereign immunity.” Per the
2
previously mentioned limitations posed by Alden, this interpretation implies a total transgression
of that constituonallyimposed limitation.
On the contrary, Alden explicitly fortifies the fact that lack of naming as a party is not ab
solute. If the relief sought is actually against the State and not the Defendant, as would be normally
suggested by an individual capacity claim, the State is a “real party” and therefore the claims fall
squarely within the provisions of the Eleventh Amendment. See Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123,
185 (1908); see also In re Ayers, 123 U.S. 443, at 505506; Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 75657
(1999).
Regarding this issue (which the State has not raised in its brief), Plaintiff admits to having
erred in constructing the prayer for relief contained within our original complaint. Upon correction
of the prayer for relief to claim relief against the individuals instead of the State, sovereign immu
nity will become a moot defense. If the State continues its intervention following amendment of
the complaint, it is no longer a real party against which relief is sought, and will be consenting
fully willingly to suit through said intervention.
B. The Claims are Against State Officers in their Individual Capacities, Precluding
Sovereign Immunity
Alden again proves as a valuable resource. Sovereign immunity “bars suits against States
but not lesser entities,” explicitly not barring suits against “state officers.” Alden v. Maine, 527
U.S. 706, 756 (1999). Even individual capacity claims pursuing money damages (instead of solely
declaratory or injunctive) may be pursued against said officers in cases of “unconstitutional or
wrongful conduct fairly attributable to the officer himself.” Id. at 757. Given these individual ca
pacity claims are against individuals who, at the time of the acts, were state officers, and these
claims are also for unconstitutional conduct, this standard is certainly met.
Again, this is limited to circumstances in which relief is not actually sought against the
State. As previously mentioned, upon amendment of Plaintiff’s complaint to correct its deficiency,
the bar is more than met for precluding sovereign immunity towards these state officers.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the previously mentioned reasons, the attached Plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave to Amend should be GRANTED, and State’s Motion to Dismiss should be DENIED by
the Court.
3
Dated this 20th day of August, 2024.
Respectfully submitted,
Robin5D
Robin5D, Esq.
R. Bar No. 28105
D: @checkraisefold
Legacy Legal Group, LLC.
4
In the Superior Court of
the State of Ridgeway
Robin5D, HERECOMESTHEFBI,
kenneytube, NinjazAwesomes,
Plaintiff(s),
v.
Impediage, drjack0,
Defendant(s).
Case No. RSCCV3435
Motion for Leave to Amend
Hon. Judge t1dtony
MOTION
Plaintiff Robin5D, pro se, and representing all other listed plaintiffs (jointly as Plaintiffs or
simply Plaintiff), submits this motion for leave to amend their complaint in the matter mentioned
above.
RATIONALE
As noted in the attached brief, Plaintiff’s prayer for relief contained within our complaint
contains a grave deficiency, failing to distinguish the relief between the official and individual
capacity claims. This deficiency, if uncorrected, automatically forces dismissal of these claims
through sovereign immunity.
In general, consideration of a motion for leave to amend considers prejudice to the oppos
ing party, timeliness, and reasoning.
1. This motion is timely, considering this case is in the pleadings phase, and the State has
not completed an answer.
2. This motion seeks to cure a defect in favor of the opposing party, which removes them
as a party against which relief is sought for four individual capacity claims. The oppos
ing party is not prejudiced by this motion.
3. This motion has good cause as per the previously mentioned reasoning.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the previously mentioned reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend
should be GRANTED by the Court, restricting it to amendment of only the prayer for relief to
cure its deficiencies.
5
Dated this 20th day of August, 2024.
Respectfully submitted,
Robin5D
Robin5D, Esq.
R. Bar No. 28105
D: @checkraisefold
Legacy Legal Group, LLC.
6
