State of Missouri v. Holmes
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 3] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's emergency motion for release [Doc. 5] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this a ction is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of St. Charles County. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall forward a copy of this Order to the Circuit Court of St. Charles County, with reference to State v. Clarence A. Holmes, 1211-CR06779.. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 2/12/13. (LGK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
STATE OF MISSOURI,
No. 4:13CV198 SPM
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Defendant Clarence Holmes seeks to remove a criminal proceeding, in which
he has been charged with driving with a revoked or suspended license, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). The Court has reviewed the notice of removal and will remand
the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4).
As grounds for removal, defendant states that he is a sovereign of the Nation
of Yisrael,1 and therefore, he is not subject to the laws of Missouri or the United
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1443 states, in relevant part:
Any of the following civil actions or criminal prosecutions, commenced
in a State court may be removed by the defendant to the district court of
The Nation of Yisrael appears to be a fictional country located, according to
defendant, near Black Jack, Missouri.
the United States for the district and division embracing the place
wherein it is pending:
(1) 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 . . .
To demonstrate that removal is proper under § 1443(1), a defendant “must
show that he relies upon a law providing for equal civil rights stated in terms of racial
equality.” Neal v. Wilson, 112 F.3d 351, 355 (8th Cir. 1997). “‘[R]emoval is not
warranted by an assertion that a denial of rights of equality may take place and go
uncorrected at trial. Removal is warranted only if it can be predicted by reference to
a law of general application that the defendant will be denied or cannot enforce the
specified federal rights in the state courts.” State of Ga. v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 800
Defendant’s grounds for removal are legally frivolous. They state no ground
cognizable in federal court for removal, and the Court is unable to view any possible
amendment to the petition that could bring the case within the rule permitting
removal. As a result, the Court will remand this action back to the state court.
Additionally, defendant has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The
motion will be granted.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis [Doc. 3] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s emergency motion for release
[Doc. 5] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is REMANDED to the Circuit
Court of St. Charles County.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall forward a copy of this
Order to the Circuit Court of St. Charles County, with reference to State v. Clarence
A. Holmes, 1211-CR06779.
Dated this 12th day of February, 2013.
RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?