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)

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