State of Nevada v. Taz Ta'von Hammond
This text of State of Nevada v. Taz Ta'von Hammond (State of Nevada v. Taz Ta'von Hammond) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Case No.: 2:24-cv-00310-JAD-EJY Taz Ta’von Hammond, 4 Plaintiff Order Denying Motions and Striking 5 v. Unauthorized Notices
6 Officer Tyler Tomasek, [ECF Nos. 40, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50]
7 Defendants
8 Pro se plaintiff Taz Ta’von Hammond filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit against the 9 State of Nevada and Nevada Highway Patrol Trooper Tyler Tomasek over “a troubling violation 10 of constitutional rights during a routine traffic stop” on November 5, 2023.1 In August 2024, I 11 dismissed Hammond’s claims against the State of Nevada and some of the claims against Officer 12 Tomasek, leaving a single Fourth Amendment unreasonable-search claim for damages against 13 Tomasek.2 But because Hammond’s remaining claim is bound up in state-court criminal 14 proceedings pending against him related to the traffic stop, I stayed this case under Younger v. 15 Harris.3 Harris appealed that order, and that appeal remains pending.4 16 Harris has since filed a “Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Lift Younger Stay.”5 17 In it, he challenges this court’s “authority to enforce such an abstention doctrine” and argues that 18 my error must be corrected by lifting the stay “so that Plaintiff’s claims may be adjudicated 19 20
21 1 ECF No. 14 at 6 (complaint). 2 ECF No. 30. 22 3 ECF No. 34. 23 4 ECF No. 35; Ninth Circuit Case No. 24-06281. 5 ECF No. 40. 1 without unconstitutional delay.”6 And while Hammond filed this lawsuit, invoking the 2 jurisdiction of this court, he questions whether this court has the “constitutional authority to 3 continue presiding over this matter,” and he argues that this court should find that it “lacks 4 Article III status”—and so does the state court that is presiding over his criminal case.7
5 A. Hammond’s motions to dismiss, lift stay, and force settlement are denied due to the pendency of his Ninth Circuit appeal of the stay order or because 6 they lack merit.
7 Hammond has not offered a legitimate legal basis to dismiss this case or lift the stay, but 8 even if he had, this court couldn’t grant that relief right now because Hammond’s appeal is still 9 pending. As the Ninth Circuit has explained, the general rule is that “[o]nce a notice of appeal is 10 filed, the district court is divested of jurisdiction over the matters being appealed.”8 The purpose 11 of this rule “is to promote judicial economy and avoid the confusion that would ensue from 12 having the same issues before two courts simultaneously.”9 So Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rules of 13 Civil Procedure says that “[i]f a timely motion is made for relief that the court lacks authority to 14 grant because of an appeal that has been docketed and is pending, the court may: (1) defer 15 considering the motion; (2) deny the motion; or (3) state either that it would grant the motion if 16 the court of appeals remands for that purpose or that the motion raises a substantial issue.”10 17 Because Hammond’s arguments impact the issues on appeal, would upset the status quo, and are 18 19
20 6 Id. at 1–2. 7 Id. at 3. 21 8 Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Sw. Marine Inc., 242 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Griggs 22 v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982); McClatchy Newspapers v. Central Valley Typographical Union No. 46, 686 F.2d 731, 734 (9th Cir. 1982)). 23 9 Id. 10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1. 1 not founded upon any meritorious basis, I deny the motion to dismiss or lift stay without 2 prejudice while his appeal remains pending. 3 Hammond has also filed a “Motion to Resolve by Private Constitutional Settlement” in 4 which he asks the court to compel the defendant to settle his case for $10 million or “refer the
5 parties to confidential mediation.”11 But this court lacks the authority to force parties into 6 settlement.12 As the Supreme Court of Nevada has explained, “[a]lthough efforts on the part of a 7 trial judge to expedite proceedings and to encourage settlements out of court are ordinarily to be 8 commended, such efforts should never be so directed as to compel either litigant to make a 9 forced settlement.”13 So this court cannot compel a defendant to agree to Hammond’s proposed 10 settlement in this case. And while I could order the parties to a settlement conference with a 11 magistrate judge, nothing in this case suggests that such an effort would be a valuable use of 12 resources at this time, particularly while Hammond’s appeal is pending. Indeed, the defendant 13 notes in response that he believes “mediation would be futile” because the defense’s position is 14 that Hammond’s case is meritless.14 So I deny Hammond’s settlement-related motion.
15 B. The court strikes Hammond’s “notices” because they are not authorized 16 by the rules of this court.
17 Finally, I address the fact that Hammond has recently been filing various “notices” with 18 the court that are not authorized by any court rule. For example, he has filed a gotcha notice 19
20 11 ECF No. 46 at 2. 21 12 See, e.g., Epps v. Epps, 440 So. 2d 1314, 1315 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983) (“Although a trial court may expedite proceedings and encourage out-of-court settlements, it may not compel a 22 litigant to settle.”). 13 Spittler v. Routsis, 129 Nev. 1153, *1 (2013) (unpub.) (quoting Empire Etc. Bldgs. Co. v. 23 Harvey Mach. Co., 265 P.2d 32, 35 (Cal. Ct. App. 1954)). 14 ECF No. 47 at 2. 1 entitled “Notice of Judicial Admission of Lack of Constitutional Power and Implications for 2 Stay,” in which he purports to advise this court that it “acknowledged a lack of judicial power, an 3 admission with profound implications for the continued propriety of abstention doctrines being 4 applied in this case.”15 He filed a “Notice of Judicial Paralysis and Self-Preserving Inaction”
5 that warns this court that its “ongoing silence and refusal to rule on” his pending motions have 6 “triggered unmistakable appearance of judicial paralysis.”16 A “Notice of Watching Record” 7 states that it is filed “not as a motion, but as a constitutional signal to the Court and the 8 parties.”17 And Hammond’s last notice is a revised settlement offer to the defense,18 which 9 should be a private communication between the parties and should not have been filed on the 10 record. 11 These improper notices are unauthorized, and the court will not take action in response to 12 them. Plus, because this case is stayed for all purposes, this case is not in a position for this court 13 to grant any relief related to these notices. So the court will direct the clerk of court to strike 14 these notices from the record, and Hammond is cautioned that this court may strike any future
15 notices that are not authorized by the rules of this court. 16 Conclusion 17 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Hammond’s motions to dismiss, to lift the stay, and 18 for settlement [ECF Nos. 40, 46] are DENIED. This case remains stayed for all purposes. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to STRIKE from the 20 record the improper notices filed at ECF Nos. 44, 45, 48, and 50. 21 15 ECF No. 44. 22 16 ECF No. 45 at 1. 23 17 ECF No. 48. 18 ECF No. 50.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State of Nevada v. Taz Ta'von Hammond, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-nevada-v-taz-tavon-hammond-nvd-2025.