THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIDGEWAY
takosull0,
Petitioner,
v.
Larkin_RBLX, in his official capacity as a law
enforcement officer in the Ridgeway State Police,
pursuant to 7 R. Stat. § 133.002.
Respondent.
Hon.
Case No.: RSC-CV-8446
PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND PETITION AND TO ESTABLISH
BRIEFING SCHEDULE
Petitioner takosull0, proceeding pro se, respectfully moves this Court for leave to amend
the Petition for Habeas Corpus filed in this matter, and for an order establishing a briefing
schedule for further response, and states as follows:
I. THE PETITION CONTAINS CLERICAL ERRORS THAT DO NOT
REFLECT ITS SUBSTANCE
1. The Petition, as filed, contains two clerical errors. First, the Petition refers to
Respondent's employer as the "Ridgeway State Police." Respondent is in fact an officer of the
Ridgeway County Sheriff's Office. Second, paragraph 6 of the Petition refers to "RVC § 1.03,"
which is the citation for Criminal Speeding, when the Petition's own factual allegations,
throughout paragraphs 6 through 13, describe and quote at length the elements and application
of RVC § 9.04, Excessive Noise Pollution; the actual offense for which Petitioner was arrested
and which is the sole subject of this proceeding.
PAGE 1
2. Both errors are attributable to Petitioner having filed a substantively similar petition in
a separate matter, Case No. RSC-CV-8446, shortly before this one, and inadvertently carrying
forward the caption language and citation from that filing. Neither error reflects any ambiguity
or uncertainty as to the claim actually being pursued: the body of the Petition describes, in
detail, an arrest for horn use, a warning by a peace officer, the elements of RVC § 9.04, and a
subsequent use of force, none of which has any relationship to Criminal Speeding under RVC §
1.03.
3. Rule 8 of the Ridgeway Rules of Civil Procedure directs that "all pleadings shall be so
construed as to do substantial justice." Rule 42 further provides that clerical mistakes in
judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or
omission may be corrected by the court at any time. A mislabeled statute number, squarely
contradicted by the substantive factual allegations surrounding it, is precisely this kind of
correctable oversight.
4. Respondent's Brief in Opposition seizes upon the citation error as a basis for outright
dismissal, arguing that Petitioner "was not arrested on August 19, 2026, for criminal speeding"
and therefore "cannot possibly expunge a record for which he does not have." Respondent's own
brief concedes, in its very next section, that the operative facts concern an arrest for Excessive
Noise Pollution under RVC § 9.04, the same offense described throughout the Petition.
Respondent's opposition does not reflect any genuine confusion as to the claim being asserted; it
treats a scrivener's error as though it were the substance of the case.
5. Petitioner therefore requests leave to amend the Petition to (a) correct the caption and
all references to Respondent's employer to reflect the Ridgeway County Sheriff's Office, and (b)
correct the statutory citation in the paragraphs therein from RVC § 1.03 to RVC § 9.04. No new
PAGE 2
claim, party, or theory is introduced by this amendment; it conforms the Petition's caption and
citation to the facts already pleaded.
II. SERVICE HAS NOT YET BEEN COMPLETED IN THIS MATTER
6. Petitioner notes for the record that, to Petitioner's knowledge, service of the summons
and Petition has not yet been made upon Respondent in accordance with Rule 4. Petitioner
raises this not to seek dismissal or to penalize Respondent for appearing, but so that the record
reflects the procedural posture accurately as the Court considers the schedule requested below.
III. PROPOSED BRIEFING SCHEDULE
7. Because the amendment corrects only clerical matters and does not alter the substance
of the claim Respondent has already briefed, Petitioner does not believe Respondent should be
prejudiced by the correction. In fairness, and notwithstanding that Respondent has already filed
a Brief in Opposition, Petitioner requests that Respondent be given the opportunity to file a new
or supplemental response to the Petition as amended.
8. Petitioner proposes the following schedule, drawn from the seven-day period Rule 7
identifies as the standard interval for pre-trial proceedings under these Rules: (a) Respondent
shall have seven (7) days from the date the amended Petition is filed to submit a new or
supplemental Brief in Opposition addressing the Petition as amended. (b) If Respondent files a
new or supplemental response within that seven-day period, Petitioner shall have five (5) days
from the date of that filing to submit a Reply. (c) If Respondent does not file a new or
supplemental response within the seven-day period, Respondent's existing Brief in Opposition
(filed August 20, 2026) shall stand as Respondent's response to the amended Petition, and
PAGE 3
Petitioner shall have five (5) days from the expiration of that period to file a Reply addressing
both the amended Petition and Respondent's existing Brief in Opposition.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court:
A. Grant Petitioner leave to amend the Petition to correct Respondent's employer to the
Ridgeway County Sheriff's Office and to correct the statutory citation in paragraph 6 to RVC §
9.04;
B. Enter a briefing schedule consistent with Section III above; and
C. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ takosull0
Petitioner Pro Se
PAGE 4
