State of Missouri v. Fullilove
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER / ORDER OF REMAND as to Respondent Michael Anthony Fullilove ; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 2 ] is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is remanded to the T wenty-Second Judicial Circuit Court (City of St. Louis) of Missouri. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall forward a copy of this Order to thestate court with reference to State v. Michael Anthony Fullilove, 1422-CR00351-01. (cc: M. Jane Schweitzer,Circuit Clerk, City of St. Louis, MO). Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 12/9/14. (KKS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
STATE OF MISSOURI,
MICHAEL ANTHONY FULLILOVE,
No. 4:14-CV-1997 CEJ
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Defendant Michael Fullilove seeks to remove a Missouri state court criminal proceeding
to this Court 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 an AAboriginal Indigenous
Moorish-American,@ and therefore, he is not subject to the laws of Missouri or the United States.
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 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 Amust 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). A>[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 (1966)).
Defendant=s grounds for removal are legally frivolous.
He presents 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 to the state court.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant=s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc.
2] is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is remanded to the Twenty-Second
Judicial Circuit Court (City of St. Louis) of Missouri.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall forward a copy of this Order to the
state court with reference to State v. Michael Anthony Fullilove, 1422-CR00351-01.
Dated this 9th day of December, 2014.
CAROL E. JACKSON
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?