State of Missouri v. Harvey

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to remove and dismiss [ECF No. 5 ] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED. Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 1/22/15. (KJS)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION STATE OF MISSOURI, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. ALAN HARVEY, Defendant, No. 4:14CV1888 JCH MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Defendant was charged with tampering in St. Louis City. Missouri v. Harvey, No. 13SLCR10736. He purports to remove the action to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). The removal is frivolous, and defendant has failed to adequately prosecute this action. On December 17, 2014, the Court ordered defendant to either pay the filing fee or submit a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court also ordered defendant to comply with the removal statute. He has not complied with the Order. As a result, this action is dismissed under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Additionally, 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) applies only to cases involving racial inequality and plaintiff has made no such showing. See Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 800 (1966) (“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.”); Neal v. Wilson, 112 F.3d 351, 355 (8th Cir.1997) (to remove under § 1443 defendant must rely on law providing for equal civil rights stated in terms of racial equality). Therefore, the removal is frivolous. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to remove and dismiss [ECF No. 5] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED. Dated this 22nd day of January, 2015. /s/ Jean C. Hamilton UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?