Noble v. State Of Delaware et al
MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 1/5/2018. (crb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
THOMAS E. NOBLE,
STATE OF DELAWARE, et al.,
Introduction. Plaintiff Thomas E. Noble ("Plaintiff'), an inmate at the Howard R.
Young Correctional Institution in Wilmington, Delaware, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
1983. Plaintiff was not incarcerated when he commenced this action. He appears pro se and has
paid the filing fee. 1 On
ovember 7, 2017, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss,
exercised its inherent power, and sua sponte dismissed all other claims (and Defendants) as devoid of
merit. (D.I. 35) The Court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any State claims.
(Id.) On November 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to remove and to transfer his State Criminal
Case to this Court pursuant to pendent jurisdiction. (D.I. 38) On November 20, 2017, the Clerk of
Court received and docketed Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and for a stay. (D.I. 39)
Motion to Remove and Transfer. Plaintiff seeks to remove and transfer a criminal
case against him pending in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, Criminal Case ID No.
1710002645. (D.I. 38) Plaintiff asserts that he was illicitly reincarcerated on October 5, 2017, after
Defendants colluded to evade service in the instant case. He also contends Defendants "illicitly and
As noted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Plaintiff "is a serial litigator.
He has filed over five dozen lawsuits in federal district courts, including over 30 complaints in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware." In re Noble, 663 F. App'x 188, 189 (Oct.
even criminally" deprived him of a venue for impartial judicial review at all levels of the State
Even though the Court dismissed the complaint in this matter and declined to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction, Plaintiff seeks removal of his criminal case. In order for a case to
be removable to the district court, the court must have original jurisdiction due either to a federal
question or diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1441. "Only state-court actions
that originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by the
defendant." Kline v. Securiry Guards, Inc., 386 F .3d 246, 252 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Caterpillar Inc. v.
Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)). If the case could not have been filed originally in federal court,
then removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 is improper and remand is appropriate. Id. (citations omitted).
Removal of state criminal matters is permitted in limited instances under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1443. Pursuant to § 1443(1), a criminal prosecution commenced in a State court may be removed
to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it
is pending against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right
under any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons
within the jurisdiction thereof. 28 U.S.C. 1443(1). A state court defendant who seeks removal of a
criminal prosecution to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (1) "must demonstrate both (1) that he
is being deprived of rights guaranteed by a federal law 'providing for ... equal civil rights'; and
(2) that he is 'denied or cannot enforce that right in the courts' of the state." Davis v. Glanton, 107
F.3d 1044, 1047 (3d Cir. 1997) (quoting Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 788 (1966)). With respect to
the first prong, "the phrase 'any law providing for ... equal civil rights' must be construed to mean
any law providing for specific civil rights stated in terms of racial equality." Rachel, 384 at 792
(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1)). Second, it must appear, in accordance with the provisions of
§ 1443(1), that the removal petitioner is denied or cannot enforce the specified federal rights in the
courts of the State. See Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U .S. 213, 219 (1975) (citations omitted).
The notice of removal does not satisfy these requirements. Plaintiff does not allege
that the State court litigation involves issues of racial equality. In addition, the issues raised by
Plaintiff are rights that are enforceable in state court. It is generally presumed that "the protection
of federal constitutional or statutory rights [can] be effected in the pending state proceedings, civil or
criminal." Johnson, 421 U.S. at 219-20. Removal of the State criminal matter is not appropriate and,
therefore, the Court will deny the motion. (D.I. 38)
Motion for Reconsideration and for Stay of Order. On November 20, 2017, the
Court received Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and to stay order. (D.I. 39) The motion was
signed on November 16, 2017, and the Court considers it timely filed. Plaintiff states that he was
required to file the motion without all of his documents. Nonetheless, Plaintiff argues that the
ovember 7, 2017 memorandum opinion and order dismissing the action was "exceedingly
erroneous" and did not uphold his constitutional rights. He claims that the undersigned Judge is
biased, and that the Court's ruling was not impartial, did not address all his claims, and misapplied
The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to "correct manifest errors oflaw or
fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Max's Seafood Cafe ex reL Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176
F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). "A proper Rule 59 (e) motion ... must rely on one of three grounds:
(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to
correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice." Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d
666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010) (internal citation omitted).
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration fails on the merits because he has not set forth
any intervening change in the controlling law, new evidence, or clear errors of law or fact made by
the Court in its November 7, 2017 memorandum opinion and order. See Max 's Seafood Cafe, 176
F.3d at 677. The Court has once again considered the filings of the parties and the evidence of
record. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any of the aforementioned grounds to warrant
reconsideration and, therefore, the motion will be denied. (D.I. 39)
Conclusion. The Court will deny the motion to remove and transfer the State
criminal case as well as the motion for reconsideration and to stay. (D.I. 38, 38) An appropriate
order will be entered.
BLE LEONARD P. STARK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUD GE
January 5, 2018
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?