State of Georgia v. Hesed-El

Filing 16

ORDER denying 11 Motion for an Opportunity to be Heard; denying 12 Motion for Relief from Judgment re 9 Order; and denying 14 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 04/11/2018. (jlh)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION STATE OF GEORGIA, * * Plaintiff, * * V. * CV 118-037 * BRO T. HESED-EL, * * Defendant. * ORDER Before the Court are Defendant's: (a) ''Motion to Request an Opportunity to be Heard" (doc. 11); (b) "Motion for Relief from Judgment" (doc. 12); and (c) "Motion for Permission to Appeal In Forma Pauperis" (doc. 14). On March 6, 2018, Defendant, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of removal purporting to remove two criminal prosecutions from the State Court of Richmond County, Georgia, namely Case Nos. 2017-RCMC-9095 & 2017-RCMC-9096 (the "State Actions"), to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443.^ (Doc. 1; see also Doc 1-1, at 2-7 (criminal arrest warrants issued in connection with the State Actions.) Contemporaneously with the filing of his ^ The State Actions respectively concern Defendant's alleged criminal trespass on a private citizen's property as well as his obstruction of a law enforcement officer while inside a Richmond County courthouse (i.e., violations of Georgia law). (See Doc. 1-1, at 2-7.) Notably, the Court previously dismissed Defendant's prior attempt to remove the State Actions to this Court. See State of Georgia v. Hesed-El, et al.. Case No. l;17-cv-141 (S.D. Ga. dismissed Dec. 5, 2017). notice of removal, Defendant filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On March (Doc. 2.) 8, 2018, the United States Magistrate Judge conducted an initial review of Defendant's filings and entered a report and recommendation (the wherein he concluded that this Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the criminal matters underlying the State Actions and recommended, inter alia, that: (i) Defendant's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied as moot; (ii) the instant case be dismissed; and (iii) while '''removal' procedurally proper manner, was in never accomplished an abundance of in a caution," the underlying criminal prosecutions be remanded to the State Court of Richmond County, Georgia. (Doc. 5.) On March Defendant filed his objections to the R&R. 14, (Doc. 7.) 2018, On March 16, 2018, Defendant filed his "Supplemental Notice of Removal." (Doc. 8.) After conducting an independent and de novo review of the entire record, this Court overruled Defendant's objections, noted that Defendant's Supplemental Notice of Removal failed to cure R&R the as improper its own removal, opinion "Dismissal Order").) and on adopted March 20, the Magistrate 2018. (Doc. Judge's 9 (the Accordingly, the Court: (i) denied as moot Defendant's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis; (ii) dismissed and closed this case; and (iii) despite noting that removal was never properly accomplished, remanded the underlying 2 criminal prosecutions to the State Court Georgia, out of an abundance of caution. On March Opportunity 23, to 2018, be Defendant Heard. (Doc. of Richmond County, (Id.) filed 11.) his Motion On April Defendant filed his Motion for Relief from Judgment. for 2, an 2018, On April 4, 2018, Defendant filed a notice of appeal with regards to the Dismissal Order as well as his Motion for Permission to Appeal In Fojrma Pauperis. (Docs. 13, 14.) Here, to the extent that the Court has jurisdiction to do so,^ the Opportunity Court to denies be Defendant's Heard because Motion Defendant to Request already had an an opportunity to be heard - and indeed was heard - in this matter as to the propriety of removal to this Court by way of the filing of his objections to the R&R, his Supplemental Notice of Removal, and indeed, his original notice of removal. Further, the Judgment Court denies Defendant's Motion for Relief from because Defendant has failed to establish that he is entitled to any relief under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) & 60(b). See, e.g., Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (Rule 59(e) may not be used ''to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior ^ See Mahone v. Ray, 326 F.3d 1176, 1179 {11th Cir. 2003) ("As a general matter, the filing of a notice of appeal deprives the district court of jurisdiction over all issues involved in the appeal. However, it does not prevent the district court from taking action in furtherance of the appeal. Nor does it prevent the court from entertaining motions on matters collateral to those at issue on appeal." (internal quotations, citations, and footnote omitted)). 3 to the entry of judgment," as "the only grounds for granting a Rule 59(e) errors of motion law are or newly-discovered fact" (internal evidence quotations or and manifest citations omitted)); Griffin v. Swim-Tech Corp., 722 F.2d 677, 680 (11th Cir. 1984) ("[R]elief under [Rule 60(b)(6)'s umbrella "any other reason that justifies relief" clause] is an extraordinary remedy which may be circumstances.") invoked only upon a showing of exceptional Finally, because the Court can discern no non- frivolous issues to be raised on appeal and therefore the appeal has not been taken in good faith, the Court denies Defendant's Motion for U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); 445 Permission (1962); Bilal to Appeal In Coppedge v. v. Driver, Forma United 251 F.3d Pauperis. States, 369 1346, 1349 See 28 U.S. 438, (11th Cir. 2001). Therefore, upon the foregoing and due consideration, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendant's Motion to Request an Opportunity to be Heard (doc. 11), Motion for Relief from Judgment (doc. 12), and Motion for Permission to Appeal In Forma Pauperis (doc. 14) are DENIED. ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this day of April, 2018. J. /RANp^ HALZ, CHIEF JUDGE UNITE^^TATES DISTRICT COURT ^GUTIffiRN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

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?