State of Nevada v. Hammond ( 2023 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 STATE OF NEVADA, Case No.: 2:23-cv-01989-APG-BNW 4 Plaintiff Order Remanding Case for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction 5 v. 6 TAZ TA’VON HAMMOND, 7 Defendant 8 9 Defendant Taz Hammond removed this action from Las Vegas Justice Court based on 10 federal question jurisdiction. ECF No. 1-1. Under 28 U.S.C.§ 1331, federal district courts have 11 jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United 12 States.” It appears that Hammond believes federal question jurisdiction exists because he claims 13 Constitutional violations related to a traffic stop and resulting ticket. As I previously advised 14 Hammond, his federal defenses or counterclaims cannot create federal question jurisdiction for 15 removal. See Holmes Grp., Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 831 (2002) 16 (stating that a counterclaim cannot serve as the basis for federal question jurisdiction); Hall v. N. 17 Am. Van Lines, Inc., 476 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2007) (stating that “the existence of a defense 18 based upon federal law is insufficient to support jurisdiction” (quotation omitted)). 19 Consequently, I ordered him to show cause why this action should not be remanded to the court 20 from which it was removed. ECF No. 3. 21 Hammonds responds that there is federal question jurisdiction because “the cause of 22 action arose from an act of congress regulating commerce (Traffic),” and he cites 49 U.S.C. 23 § 31301(2) in support. That statute addresses federal requirements for commercial motor vehicle 1} operators. Hammond’s own removal papers show that this case has nothing to do with 2||enforcement of federal law on commercial motor vehicle operators. Hammond states that he was pulled over by a Nevada state police officer, that he told the officer that he was operating a “private vehicle” (a Toyota Corolla), and that he was “engaged in safe conduct not in commerce 5|| at the time of the stop.” ECF No. 1-1 at 2, 8. The ticket was issued by the State of Nevada for 6} having a fictitious or revoked registration, driving an unregistered vehicle, driving without a 7\\ license, and not having proof of insurance. /d. at 7. 8 Hammond also states that the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate 9! commerce with foreign nations, among states, and with Indian tribes, and that this court has 10]| jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1337(a) over any civil action arising out of a congressional act 11]/regulating commerce. But the ticket issued by the State does not arise under any congressional 12|/act. Nor does it raise issues about commerce with foreign nations, among states, or with Indian 13]| tribes. 14 I THEREFORE ORDER that this action is remanded to the Las Vegas Justice Court from 15]| which it was removed for all further proceedings. The clerk of court is instructed to close this 16]| case. 17 DATED this 20th day of December, 2022. 18 ANDREW P. GORDON 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23