LAMB v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY OAKLYN BOROUGH MUNICIPAL COURT et al

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 4/8/2013. (nz, )n.m.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MINISTER QADIR LAMB,

HON. JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Plaintiff,

Civil No. 13-1135 (JBS/JS)

v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
STATE OF NEW JERSEY OAKLYN
BOROUGH MUNICIPAL COURT, et
al.,
Defendants.

SIMANDLE, Chief Judge:
The instant matter is before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915.

Plaintiff Minister Qadir Lamb ("Plaintiff"),

representing himself, seeks to remove the underlying municipal
court action to this Court and requests to proceed without the
prepayment of fees.

[Docket Item 1.]

According to the proposed

complaint, the Oaklyn Municipal Court demanded that the Plaintiff
pay fines and costs associated with a traffic ticket.

The Court

finds as follows:
1. The Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee or execute a
proper affidavit for filing in forma pauperis.

Instead,

Plaintiff attached an "Affidavit of Financial Statement" which
states the Plaintiff does "not have, or possess, any gold or
silver coins, as prescribed by United States Constitution Law,
which is the lawful money to pay the restricting demands,
conditionally commanded by Employees and Contractors of the

Court."

[Docket Item 1-1 at 1.]

This is insufficient to

establish that the Plaintiff should be entitled to proceed
without prepayment of fees.
2.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) requires a litigant who seeks to

proceed without prepayment of fees to submit an affidavit of all
assets the litigant possesses along with a statement that the
litigant is unable to pay the required fees.

In addition, the

"affidavit shall state the nature of the action, defense or
appeal and affiant's belief that the person is entitled to
redress."
3.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

Here, Plaintiff's affidavit does not include a statement

of all his assets so the Court is unable to assess the merits of
his IFP application.

Plaintiff's abstruse reference to "gold and

coin" and subsequent argument that the Constitution requires
payment in "gold or silver coin," not the currency in use today,
is without merit or logic.

If the Plaintiff wishes to proceed

with this action in forma pauperis, he must comply with the
requirements of § 1915(a)(1) and submit an affidavit disclosing
all the assets he currently possesses.

Without this information,

the court will deny Plaintiff's application and will remand this
complaint to municipal court.
4.

Even if the Court were to grant IFP status to the

Plaintiff, the Court would still be required to remand this
matter to the municipal court.

This Court lacks jurisdiction

2

over a traffic ticket case. See, e.g., Christ v. Vora, 294 Fed.
Appx. 752, 752 (3d Cir. 2008) (affirming the district court’s
dismissal of an action which plaintiff sought to remove from
municipal court, arguing that traffic citations, and other
citations, were issued on the basis of religious and ethnic
discrimination), and El Bey v. N. Brunswick Mun. Court, No. 082825, 2008 WL 2510725, at *1 (D.N.J. June 19, 2008) (ruling that
“a federal district court may not exercise jurisdiction over a
municipal court proceeding” and citing several Third, Sixth, and
Ninth Circuit cases dismissing or remanding traffic court actions
to state court).
5. State court actions implicating civil rights cases may
not be removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1443, except for “rare
situations where it can be clearly predicted by reason of the
operation of a pervasive and explicit state or federal law that
those rights [the defendant’s federal rights] will inevitably be
denied by the very act of bringing the defendant to trial in the
state court.”

City of Greenwood, Mississippi v. Peacock, 384

U.S. 808, 827 (1966).

In the present case, Mr. Lamb has the

opportunity to defend himself in the Municipal Court which
observes due process of law, and, if convicted, to seek judicial
review in the Superior Court of New Jersey, the Supreme Court of
New Jersey and ultimately, in a case of federal constitutional
dimension, the Supreme Curt of the United States.

3

Plaintiff has

not demonstrated in his filing that New Jersey courts are
incapable of protecting his civil rights.

This removal under 28

U.S.C. § 1443 is therefore improper and this federal court lacks
jurisdiction.
6.

Therefore, even if the Court were to grant the

Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis, the removal of
this case would be frivolous and without basis in law because the
Court lacks jurisdiction over municipal court matters.
7.

The accompanying Order for Remand will be entered.

April 8, 2013
Date

s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Chief U.S. District Judge

4