Bureau of Motor Vehicles et al v. Burdette

Filing 2

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING case. Pierre Burdette is CAUTIONED that if he files any other frivolous, malicious, or meritless lawsuits, he may be fined, sanctioned, or restricted. Signed by Judge William C Lee on 9/18/2017. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(lns)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES,
INDIANA SUPERIOR COURT, STATE
OF INDIANA, and J. GIRARDOT,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
PIERRE D. BURDETTE,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 1:17-CV-398 WL

OPINION AND ORDER
Pierre D. Burdette, a prisoner without a lawyer, sent the clerk a document captioned, “Legal
Notice of Removal” in which he purports to remove the State criminal case, State v. Burdette,
02D05-1611-F6-1218 (Allen Superior Court filed November 8, 2016), where he pleaded guilty to
three counts and was sentenced to a year in jail. The clerk improperly opened this as a civil, rather
than a criminal, case. However, it would merely be a waste of additional judicial resources to direct
the clerk to re-docket this case with a different number because it must be dismissed either way.
First, a notice of removal must be filed “not later than 30 days after the arraignment in the
State court, or at any time before trial, whichever is earlier.” 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(1). Though the
statute provides that the District Court may grant leave to file an untimely notice for good cause
shown, Burdette has not provided any explanation for waiting nearly three months after his
conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. See Burdette v. State, 02A04-1702-CR-384,
2017 WL 2778047 (Ind. Ct. App. June 27, 2017).
Second, even if Burdette had tried to remove his State criminal case before he pleaded
guilty, 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) permits removal of state prosecutions only where State law formally

discriminates against a defendant based on his race. State v. Haws, 131 F.3d 1205, 1209 (7th Cir.
1997) citing Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780 (1966) and Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights
Org., 441 U.S. 600, 621 (1979). Because Indiana law does not formally discriminate based on
race, this case could not have been removed.
Finally, even if removal was not procedurally impossible, Burdette’s arguments are
meritless. He argues that the State of Indiana does not have jurisdiction over him because he is an
“Aboriginal, Indigenous Moorish American National.” ECF 1 at 3. That is to say, because of his
purported nationality, he is immune from prosecution for crimes he commits in the State of
Indiana. However, “[r]egardless of an individual’s claimed status of descent . . . that person is not
beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. These theories should be rejected summarily, however they
are presented.” United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 767 (7th Cir. 2011).
For these reasons, this case is DISMISSED. Pierre Burdette is CAUTIONED that if he
files any other frivolous, malicious, or meritless lawsuit, he may be fined, sanctioned, or restricted.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: September 18, 2017
s/William C. Lee
William C. Lee, Judge
United States District Court

2