IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIDGEWAY
FOR THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
HALO4ASIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
RIDGEWAY PARKS SERVICE,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. RSC-CV-0750
MOTION
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNT I
INTRODUCTION
1. This Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on August 6, 2026, on the
ground that “[t]he time at which Plaintiff was made aware of the reason for their denial
remains disputed between parties.” That dispute concerns Count II. It has no bearing on
Count I, which the Ruling does not address.
2. Count I asks a single question of law: whether an activity warning issued for failure to
submit a weekly log is a criterion that 4 R. Stat. § 122.402 permits an appointing
authority to rely upon in denying an appointment. When the denial was communicated,
who communicated it, and what the Application Tracker displayed on any given day are
all immaterial to that question. Plaintiff respectfully moves for partial summary judgment
on Count I.
THE MATERIAL FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE
3. Three facts establish Count I, and the Defendant has admitted or affirmatively asserted
each of them.
1
4. First, the Defendant relied on 4 R. Stat. § 122.402(f), and no other criterion. Its
coordinator declares that he “recorded Plaintiff’s application and the applicable statutory
basis for the negative result - 4 R. Stat. § 122.402(f)” and published Plaintiff’s result
“together with a citation to 4 R. Stat. § 122.402(f) as the reason for that result.”
Coordinator Decl. ¶ 5. Its Chief Ranger declares that Plaintiff was among the applicants
“failed under 4 R. Stat. § 122.402(f).” Chief Ranger Decl. ¶ 3. The Defendant has never
invoked any other subsection.
5. Second, the record the Defendant relied upon consisted of activity warnings issued for
failure to submit weekly activity logs. The coordinator declares that the record “reflected
the active adverse action as a warning for failure to complete weekly activity logs.”
Coordinator Decl. ¶ 4. The Superintendent stated the same in substance: that Plaintiff
“had an activity strike within RCFD.” Ex. D; Answer ¶ 1 (admitted).
6. Third, Plaintiff was never terminated. He resigned from the Ridgeway County Fire
Department, and the Defendant has never contended otherwise.
7. Whether the second warning’s appeal was complete on June 20 or June 19, and whether
the reasoning was posted on June 20 or communicated on June 25, do not bear on the
question presented. Whatever its appeal status on any given morning, the record relied
upon was an activity warning for a missed weekly log.
ARGUMENT
A. SECTION 122.402 IS A CLOSED LIST, AND THE DEFENDANT IS FIXED TO
SUBSECTION (f).
8. Section 122.402 provides that background investigation criteria “shall be limited to” the
enumerated subsections. The phrase “shall be limited to” admits of no supplementation:
an appointing authority may consider what the list contains and nothing else. The
Defendant, by its own sworn declarations, invoked subsection (f) alone. The question is
therefore whether subsection (f) reaches an activity warning for a missed weekly log.
B. “OTHER ADVERSE CONSEQUENCE” DOES NOT REACH AN ACTIVITY
WARNING FOR A MISSED WEEKLY LOG.
9. Subsection (f) permits inquiry into “whether the individual has been terminated, or has
received other adverse consequence, within a department or agency.” The operative
words are “other adverse consequence,” and they take their meaning from the word they
accompany. A word “is given more precise content by the neighboring words with which
2
it is associated.” Yates v. United States, 574 U.S. 528, 543 (2015); accord Gustafson v.
Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561, 575 (1995). Where a general term follows a specific one, the
general term is read to embrace things of the same character as the specific.
10. Termination is the loss of the position itself. It is final, it is imposed, and it ends the
employment relationship. An “other adverse consequence” within the meaning of
subsection (f) must be a consequence of that character - a serious, settled outcome
bearing on an individual’s fitness for public employment.
11. An activity warning is not such a consequence. It records that an employee did not submit
a log in a given week. It is appealable on demand. Under the issuing department’s own
Handbook Policy 605-3, it retracts automatically once the employee completes two
activity cycles without another warning, and it may be appealed by completing double the
standard activity in a single cycle. Ex. E. It may be nullified outright for clerical error - as
one of Plaintiff’s two warnings was, by the department’s Deputy Chief, on June 16, 2026,
four days before the determination the Defendant says is operative. Ex. F. A record that
expires on its own terms, that an employee can cure by logging additional minutes, and
that the issuing department can void as a bot error is not the equivalent of a termination.
12. The consequence of the contrary reading confirm the point. If subsection (f) reached
every warning of any kind, then a single missed weekly log would be a permissible
ground to fail any applicant’s background investigation, permanently and in every future
application, no matter how minor the lapse or how thoroughly cured. Nothing in §
122.402 suggests the legislature equated a missed activity log with a termination.
C. THE ENUMERATED LIST CONFIRMS THAT § 122.402 IS CONCERNED WITH
FITNESS AND INTEGRITY, NOT WITH ADMINISTRATIVE PUNCTUALITY.
13. The nine criteria of § 122.402 share a common character. They concern identity and
candor - whether the applicant is an alternate account, and whether his inventory is open.
§ 122.402(a), (b). They concern criminality - association with a criminal or terrorist
organization, an accumulation of records exceeding a predetermined threshold, and
conviction of a crime. § 122.402(c), (d), (e). They concern serious employment outcomes
- termination or other adverse consequence within a department or agency. § 122.402(f).
And they concern misconduct toward others - moderation action for violations of the
game and community guidelines, toxic behavior or harassment in other communities, and
real world unlawful behavior. § 122.402(g), (h), (i).
14. Every criterion on that list bears on an applicant’s honesty, criminality, or fitness to hold a
position of public trust. An activity warning for failing to submit a weekly log bears on
3
none of them. It reflects no dishonesty, no criminality, no misconduct toward any person,
and no judgment about character. It reflects that a log was not filed in a given week.
15. Subsection (g) is instructive on the point. The legislature separately enumerated
“moderation action for a violation of the game and community guidelines” - a lesser
sanction, short of termination. Had the legislature understood subsection (f) to sweep in
every administrative sanction an agency might issue, subsection (g) would have been
unnecessary. That the legislature gave lesser sanctions their own subsection confirms that
(f) addresses the serious end of the spectrum: termination, and consequence of like
character.
16. Should the Defendant contend that Plaintiff’s warnings are instead reached by subsection
(d) - “a certain amount of records that exceeds a predetermined threshold” - that
provision does not assist it either. The Defendant never invoked subsection (d). It
identified no predetermined threshold. It does not contend that one activity warning
exceeds one. And its own declarations fix it to subsection (f) as the sole stated basis.
Coordinator Decl. ¶ 5; Chief Ranger Decl. 3.
D. THE ISSUING DEPARTMENT HAS CERTIFIED THAT NO ADVERSE ACTION
STANDS.
17. Independently, the Ridgeway County Fire Department’s General Counsel affirmed in his
official capacity on June 29, 2026 that the June 8 warning “was issued by clerical error”
and would be removed, that both warnings “are appealed and inactive” under Policy
605-3, and that “[n]o adverse action currently stands against Halo4asin in relation to their
period of employment with the Ridgeway County Fire Department.” Ex. E. The warning
was formally removed on June 30, 2026. The issuing department is the authority on the
status of its own discipline, and its determination is that Plaintiff received no adverse
action that stands.
18. The Defendant’s response is that the coordinator did not know of these confirmations on
June 20. That answers a different question. Whether a qualifying criterion existed under §
122.402(f) is an objective question about the character of the record, not a question about
any individual’s state of mind. Section 122.402 limits what an appointing authority may
consider; it does not excuse consideration of an impermissible criterion on a showing that
the officer believed it is permissible.
RELIEF REQUESTED
4
19. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court: (a) grant partial summary judgment for
Plaintiff on Count I; (b) declare that an activity warning issued for failure to submit a
weekly activity log is not a criterion within 4 R. Stat. § 122.402(f), and that the
Defendant’s denial of Plaintiff’s application on that basis was contrary to § 122.402 and
impeded rights secured to Plaintiff by statute within the meaning of 7 R. Stat. § 122.101;
(c) enter injunctive relief under § 122.101 directing the Defendant to vacate the “Failed”
Final Screening result and Outcome recorded for Plaintiff and to reevaluate his
application on the corrected record; and (d) reserve Count II and the question of monetary
relief for further proceedings.
20. Should the Court conclude that its Ruling of August 6, 2026 already disposed of Count I,
Plaintiff respectfully requests that this motion be treated in the alternative as a request for
clarification of the scope of that Ruling.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on this date a true copy of this Motion, with exhibits, was served on counsel for the
Defendants by electronic means through the case channel and e-filing system.
Respectfully Submitted,
_________________________
/s/ Halo4asin
HALO4ASIN
Plaintiff, Pro Se
Ridgeway State Bar License No. 18110
5
