Rendered from the court's authenticated repository
Searchable full text
4,861 characters extracted
—
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAGE - 1 -
Opposition to motion to dismiss
TonyBlony492,RBN19309
Filing username: TonyBlony492
Counsel for: Petitioner
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT OF RIDGEWAY
COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
manman2380, Case No. RSC-CV-5214
Petitioner,
vs. Opposition to motion to dismiss
Internal Affairs Division of the Palmer Police
Department,
Respondent.
Position on the Motion
Petitioner opposes the Motion to Dismiss in its entirety.
Response to Grounds and Facts
1. Respondent correctly notes that Petitioner challenges the Internal Affairs
Division’s final disposition of a use-of-force misconduct complaint. That
disposition is the precise agency action under review.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAGE - 2 -
Opposition to motion to dismiss
2. Respondent’s characterization of the requested relief is incomplete.
Petitioner seeks declaratory and equitable relief authorized by statute, not
damages or any form of monetary recovery.
3. Respondent’s assertion that administrative claims exist solely for adverse
employment actions against employees is legally incomplete. It ignores the
independent jurisdictional grant contained in 3 R. Stat. § 141.007
(Jurisdiction in Civil Service Policy).
4. Palmer Police Department is expressly defined as a Primary Civil Service
Agency under 4 R. Stat. § 111.002(c). Matters involving the internal policy
or rules of that agency fall within the Administrative Court’s original
jurisdiction.
5. Service has been completed. The Sheriff’s Office responsible for service
has confirmed that service upon the Respondent has been effected. Any
remaining technical issue regarding the electronic filing of the return is
non-dispositive under Rid. R. Civ. P. 4.2(7).
Argument
A. This Court Has Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Under 3 R. Stat. § 141.007
Respondent relies exclusively on the narrower definition of an “Administrative
Claim” in 3 R. Stat. § 141.101 and the adverse-action jurisdiction in 3 R. Stat. § 141.006
(Jurisdiction in Adverse Action). That reading is incomplete.
3 R. Stat. § 141.007 independently provides that the Administrative Court “shall
hold original jurisdiction in all matters involving the internal policy or rules of a civil
service agency.”
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAGE - 3 -
Opposition to motion to dismiss
3. R. Stat. 141.007 - JURISDICTION IN CIVIL SERVICE POLICY — The
administrative court shall hold original jurisdiction in all matters involving
the internal policy or rules of a civil service agency.
Palmer Police Department is a Primary Civil Service Agency under 4 R. Stat. §
111.002(c). The Petition challenges the Internal Affairs Division’s application of its own
internal policies and mandatory use-of-force standards when it issued a “No Policy
Violation” disposition. That challenge constitutes a matter involving the internal policy or
rules of a civil service agency. Jurisdiction therefore exists under 3 R. Stat. § 141.007
regardless of whether the case also qualifies as an adverse employment action.
B. The Court Possesses Authority to Grant the Requested Relief
Respondent incorrectly asserts that 3 R. Stat. § 141.102(b) limits the Court’s
remedial powers. That subsection governs a different procedural vehicle—an
administrative hearing initiated by the agency concerning punitive action against an
employee.
The Court independently possesses:
(i) Equitable authority under 3 R. Stat. § 141.010 (Equitable Remedy) “to
grant equitable remedy as necessary to ensure the proper enforcement of
law”; and
(ii) Declaratory authority under 3 R. Stat. § 141.011 (Declaratory Relief).
A declaration that the Internal Affairs disposition was arbitrary and contrary to law,
together with an equitable order correcting that disposition, falls within the plain
language of both statutes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAGE - 4 -
Opposition to motion to dismiss
C. Service Has Been Effected and Any Technical Deficiency Is Non-Dispositive
The Sheriff’s Office charged with service has confirmed that service upon the
Respondent has been completed. Respondent’s claim of insufficient service is therefore
factually incorrect.
In the alternative, even if any technical issue remains regarding the electronic
filing of the return, Respondent itself concedes that failure to file proof of service is not a
basis for dismissal. Under Rid. R. Civ. P. 4.2(7), the Court may order proof to be made
but may not dismiss the action solely on that ground. Any remaining technical deficiency
is curable and non-dispositive.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court deny
Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss in its entirety and allow the matter to proceed.
