CARBON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DUMANOV

Filing 12

OPINION. Signed by Judge Esther Salas on 10/7/16. (cm )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CARBON COUNTY COURT OF
COMMON PLEAS COMMONWEATH OF
PENNSLYVANIA,
Civil Action No. 15-1602 (ES) (MAH)
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM OPINION
v.
JOSEPH DUMANOV,
Defendant.
SALAS, DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending before the Court is Defendant Joseph Dumanov’s (i) motion for summary
judgment (D.E. No. 7); (ii) motion for clarification of dismissal (D.E. No. 8); (iii) objections to the
October 28, 2015 Report and Recommendations issued by Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer
(D.E. No. 9); and (iv) motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Order adopting the Report and
Recommendations (D.E. No. 10). For the reasons stated herein, the Court declines to entertain
Defendant’s motions and objections to the October 28, 2015 Report and Recommendation.
On January 2, 2015, Defendant was issued a traffic citation in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. (D.E. No. 1, Ex. A). On February 19, 2015, Defendant appeared in the Carbon
County Court in Pennsylvania before the Honorable Joseph Hamanko to contest the traffic citation.
(D.E. No. 10, Motion for Reconsideration (“Def. Mov. Br.”) at 1-2).
On March 3, 2015, Defendant Joseph Dumanov removed the instant action from the Court
of Common Pleas Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (D.E. No. 1). On October 2, 2015, Magistrate
Judge Michael A. Hammer issued an Order to Show Cause as to why the instant case should not
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (D.E. No. 3).
-1-

Following Defendant’s written submission, Judge Hammer recommended that the District
Court dismiss the action with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. (D.E. No. 5, Report and
Recommendation). In particular, Judge Hammer found that Defendant’s notice of removal failed
to state a federal cause of action or allege diversity of citizenship. (See id. at 2).
On January 12, 2016, the Court adopted Judge Hammer’s Report and Recommendation as
the Opinion of this Court and dismissed the action with prejudice for the reasons outlined in the
Report and Recommendation. (See D.E. No. 6). In essence, the Court dismissed the instant case
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
None of the instant motions demonstrate how the Court has jurisdiction over Defendant’s
traffic ticket violation in Pennsylvania state court.

As Judge Hammer noted, the Court does not

have jurisdiction over a speeding ticket. (See Report and Recommendation at 3). Indeed,
Defendant “cannot turn a traffic summons case itself into a counterclaim for affirmative relief
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Lamb v. New Jersey, No. 12-6782, 2012 WL 5830424, *1 (D.N.J. Nov.
15, 2012). This is precisely what Defendant is attempting to do by now asserting civil rights
violations. (See D.E. No. 4, Response to Order to Show Cause (alleging constitutional violations)).
Given that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the Court DENIES Defendants’
motions. Defendant may file a new and separate civil rights action against a particular party in the
proper venue, but the Court does not have the jurisdiction to hear Defendant’s claims on removal
from traffic violation.
s/Esther Salas
Esther Salas, U.S.D.J.

-2-