State of Nevada v. Taz Ta'von Hammond

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 Indicative Ruling on 5 v. Voluntary Dismissal and Request to Seal Docket 6 State of Nevada; Officer Tyler Tomasek, [ECF Nos. 53, 54] 7 Defendants Re: Pending Ninth Circuit Appeal 8 Case No. 24-6281

10 Pro se plaintiff Taz Ta’von Hammond brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit against 11 Nevada Highway Patrol Trooper Tyler Tomasek over what he characterizes as “a troubling 12 violation of constitutional rights during a routine traffic stop.”1 Because Hammond’s single 13 Fourth Amendment unreasonable-search claim for damages was related to an ongoing state-court 14 prosecution and there was adequate opportunity to raise his constitutional challenges in that 15 court, I stayed the case under Younger v. Harris.2 Hammond appealed, and that appeal remains 16 pending as Ninth Circuit Case No. 24-6281. 17 During the pendency of that appeal, Hammond has filed numerous motions and requests 18 in this court, typically in an effort to get this district court to admit that it “lack[s] Article III 19 20

21 1 ECF No. 14 at 6 (complaint). Hammond initiated this case by filing a notice of removal of his state-court prosecution for having a fictitious or revoked vehicle registration, characterizing that 22 citation-based action as one “commenced under the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States” and 28 U.S.C. 1333. ECF No. 1. Hammond was ordered to file a 23 complaint, ECF No. 4, and he did. ECF No. 14. 2 ECF No. 34 (stay order). 1 judicial power.”3 This request is obviously confusing, considering that it was Hammond who 2 filed this case in the court that he’s claiming lacks the power to adjudicate it. But the confusion 3 seems to be tied to his further (illogical) theory that if this court lacks such power, “then it 4 follows that the state court” (handling his traffic case) “also lacks judicial power” to address

5 constitutional violations, so this court must lift the Younger stay.4 I’ve denied all such motions 6 during the pendency of the appeal.5 7 But on July 24, 2025, Hammond filed a pared down “Notice of Voluntary Dismissal and 8 Motion to Seal Case.”6 He states simply that he “voluntarily dismisses this action pursuant to 9 Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”7 He does not ask the court to admit that 10 it lacks Article III power. But in the next paragraph he “further moves . . . to seal the entire 11 record in this case, including all filings and docket entries, in the interest of privacy, judicial 12 economy, and the facilitation of potential future resolution.”8 13 Because this case is stayed, I construe Hammond’s dismissal notice as a motion to lift the 14 stay to permit him to voluntarily dismiss the case. Because lifting the stay and dismissing this

15 case would impact the issues in the pending interlocutory appeal of the Younger stay order, 16 I advise the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil 17 Procedure 62.1 that I would grant the motion to lift the stay and grant the request for 18 voluntary dismissal were the Court to remand for that purpose. But I would deny the 19

20 3 See ECF No. 40 at 1. 21 4 Id. at 3. 5 See, e.g., ECF No. 51. 22 6 ECF No. 53. 23 7 Id. at 1. 8 ECF No. 54. request to seal the docket because Hammond has not shown good cause for such sealing that 2|| outweighs the public’s right to access these records.” 3 The Clerk of Court is directed to FORWARD this indicative order to the Ninth 4! Circuit Court of Appeals for consideration in conjunction with Case Number 24-6281. 5 <] (CP 4 6 LN) Ser NT USS. District judge J ennifer A. Dorsey 7 July 28, 2025 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 See In re Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Pracs. Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)) (noting that “[t]he 3 public has a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents including judicial records and documents’”). In dismissing the case, I would also deny as moot any other pending motions.