Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08025/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08025-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Constitutionality of State Statute(s)

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Richard Leland Neal, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

State of Arizona, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 07-8025-PCT-SMM

ORDER

After reviewing the Court’s records, including the Complaint, the Motion for

Preliminary injunction, the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, the Request for Judicial

Notice and the Affidavit of Undisputed Face provided by Plaintiff Richard Leland Neal and

all of the related filings, the Court has determined that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over

this matter. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, this case will be dismissed with

prejudice. 

I. BACKGROUND

This action arises out of a traffic incident occurring in Kingman, Arizona on March

9, 2007. An officer of the City of Kingman’s Police Department issued Plaintiff tickets for:

(1) driving on a suspended license and (2) failure to yield to a traffic control device. (Dkt.

1, Ex. 1) The car Plaintiff was driving was impounded and subsequently stored in the Great

West Tow Yard for at least one month. (Dkt. 1, Ex. 2) Plaintiff, a proclaimed member of

the Pembina Nation Little Shell Ban of North America (“Pembina Nation”), seeks to enjoin

Case 3:07-cv-08025-SMM Document 47 Filed 09/14/07 Page 1 of 4
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

- 2 -

the state from enforcing its motor vehicle licensing, registration and titling requirements

against him. According to Plaintiff, the state should extend reciprocity privileges to vehicle

registrations and driver’s licenses issued by the Pembina Nation since “it stands without

question ... that the Pembina Nation Little Shell Tribe exists and is recognized as having the

full respect required in any government-to-government relationship....” (Dkt. 4, ¶ 14)

Plaintiff alleges that he has a valid driver’s license issued under the Pembina Nation

Transportation Code (“PNTC”), but the state refuses to recognize the legitimacy of his

license or the PNTC.

On June 1, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Complaint, a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, a

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, and a Request for Judicial Notice. (respectively,

Dkts. 1, 2, 3, 5) Plaintiff filed a Notice of Removal on June 8, 2007 (Dkt. 6) and an Ex Parte

Motion for Immediate Hearing on Plaintiff’s Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. 8). In an

Order dated June 27, 2007 (Dkt. 9), the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary

Restraining Order and Ex Parte Motion for Immediate Hearing on Plaintiff’s Temporary

Restraining Order. Plaintiff objected to the Court’s Order denying his Motion for Temporary

Restraining Order, which the Court construed as a motion to reconsider and subsequently

denied. Plaintiff has applied for the entry of default against all of the defendants; however,

the Clerk of Court refused to enter default as the defendants have filed motions to dismiss.

II. DISCUSSION

Rule 8(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant part, "A

pleading which sets forth a claim for relief ... shall contain (a) a short and plain statement of

the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends ...." The lack of subject matter

jurisdiction may be raised by the court sua sponte at any stage in the proceeding. "Nothing

is to be more jealously guarded by a court than its jurisdiction" because '[j]urisdiction is what

its power rests upon." In re Mooney, 841 F.2d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1988), overruled on other

grounds, Partington v. Gedan, 923 F.2d 686 (9th Cir. 1991).

 Based on a review of the Complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to allege

a proper basis for invoking this Court's jurisdiction. Plaintiff asserts the existence of

Case 3:07-cv-08025-SMM Document 47 Filed 09/14/07 Page 2 of 4
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

- 3 -

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3), 1362 and 1367(a). (Dkt. 1). First,

Plaintiff has not provided a well-pleaded federal cause of action that could serve as a basis

for this lawsuit pursuant to § 1331. Plaintiff’s Complaint consists of a string of conclusory

allegations, most of which are difficult to decipher. Without a federal cause of action on

which to base the Court’s jurisdiction, the Court will cannot exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims for breach of contract pursuant. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1367(a). Plaintiff cannot establish jurisdiction under §1362 since it only applies to civil

actions brought by a tribe or band with a governing body recognized by the Secretary of the

Interior. See 28 U.S.C. § 1362. Plaintiff is bringing this action on his own, not his band’s

behalf. Morever, even if Plaintiff had brought this action on behalf of his band, as he admits

in his own Complaint, the Pembina Nation is not federally recognized. Plaintiff cannot

establish diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 since all of the parties are citizens of

Arizona. Finally, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated a deprivation of any

right provided by the Constitution or an Act of Congress that would establish jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343. Plaintiff’s Complaint has which is based on traffic tickets for

driving on a suspended driver’s licence and failing to yield to a traffic control device and his

claims arise from the alleged failure to recognize the transportation code of a band that is not

federally recognized. Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil actions

and the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists rests upon the party asserting

jurisdiction. Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). In light of Plaintiff's

failure to meet his burden of establishing this Court's jurisdiction, the Complaint will be

dismissed without prejudice. 

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not elect to file an amended complaint

alleging federal court jurisdiction by September 27, 2007, then the Clerk of Court shall

dismiss this action for lack of jurisdiction without further order of the Court.

Case 3:07-cv-08025-SMM Document 47 Filed 09/14/07 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

DATED this 13th day of September, 2007.

Case 3:07-cv-08025-SMM Document 47 Filed 09/14/07 Page 4 of 4