Jerrick v. State Of New York

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: To date, Jerrick has failed to comply with the Court' s August 25, 2014 Memorandum and Order. Accordingly, Jerrick's petition for writ of coram nobis in No. 14-CV-3545 is hereby dismissed. The notices of removal in No. l4-CV-2734 and No. l4-CV-2830 are dismissed and those actions are hereby remanded to the Criminal Courts of Queens and Kings County respectively. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § l 915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order wou ld not be taken in good faith, and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of the Court is directed to mark these cases closed and to mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order to the plaintiff at the address the docket lists for him, and to note the mailing on the dockets. Ordered by Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf on 3/8/2017. (Taronji, Robert)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-------------------------------------------------------------)(
SEAN JERRICK,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

- against -

l 4-CV-2734 (RRM) (LB)

STATE OF NEW YORK,
Defendant.

-------------------------------------------------------------)(
SEAN JERRICK,
Plaintiff,
- against -

14-CV-2830 (RRM) (LB)

ST ATE OF NEW YORK,
Defendant.

-------------------------------------------------------------)(
SEAN JERRICK,
Petitioner,
- against -

14-CV-3545 (RRM) (LB)

STATE OF NEW YORK; MICHELLE
ARMSTRONG; ERNEST HART, DEBORAH
STEVENS-MODICA; RICHARD BROWN ; and
FRANCIS GIBBONS, ESQ.,
Respondents.

-------------------------------------------------------------)(
ROSL YNN R. MAUSKOPF, United States Distri ct Judge.
Sean Jen-ick, proceeding prose, fi led two notices of removal and a petition seeking a writ
of error coram nob is between Apri l 29, 20 14 and June 4, 2014. 1 In response to each of these

1

Jerrick's filings are as follows: ( I) No. 14-CV-2734 on April 29, 20 14, seeking to remove certain criminal actions

filings, the Court mailed Jenick a noti ce of deficient filing, enclosing the necessary forms and
instructing him that his cases would be dismi ssed if he fail ed to pay the filing fee or complete an
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (" IFP") within fourteen days. (See N o. 14CY-2734 (Doc. N os. 2, 5); No. 14-CY-2830 (Doc . Nos. 2, 7); No. 14-CY-3545 (Doc. Nos. 2, 5).)
In actions No . l 4-CV-2734 and No. 14-CY-2830, the Court further advised Jerrick that his
filings were deficient for the additional reason that he fa il ed to include copies of the accusatory
documents filed against him in state court and directed him to fil e those documents. (See No.
l 4-CY -2734 (Doc. Nos. 2, 5); No. 14-CY-283 0 (Doc. Nos. 2, 7).) In all three actions, Jerrick
proceeded to fil e form IFP affidavits without responding to any of the questions therein or
providing any financial informatio n. (See No . 14-CV-2734 (Doc. No. 6); No. 14-CY-2830 (Doc.
No. 8); No. 14-CY-3545 (Doc. No . 4).) Jerrick did not fi le any o f the requested accusatory
documents.
By Memo randum and Order dated A ugust 25, 20 14, the Court denied Jerrick's tlu·ee IFP
applications without prej udice. (See No. 14-CY-2734 (Doc. No. 7); N o. 14-CY-2830 (Doc. No .
9); No. 14-CV-3545 (Doc. No . 6).) In add ition, the Court ordered Jerrick ( 1) to either pay the
$400 filing fee or fil e a completed IFP app licatio n in each of the three acti ons; (2) to file a copy

from Crim inal Court, Queens County; (2) No. 14-CY-2830 on April 30, 20 14, seeking to remove a criminal action
from Crim inal Court, Kings County; and (3) No. 14-CY-3545 on June 4, 20 14, seeking a writ of error coram nobis
in reference ro the Queens County actions. Title 28, Section 1443 of the United States Code provides for the
removal of a crim inal prosecution from state court to federal court by a defendant who "is denied or cannot enforce
in the courts of such State a right under any law providing for the equal ri ghts of citizens of the United States, or of
all persons withi n the jurisdiction thereof." A petitioner seeking to invoke § 1443 must satisfy a two-prong test.
New York v. £1, No. 12-CV-4091 , 201 2 WL 386 1227, at * l (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 20 12). First, the right allegedly
denied must arise under a fede ral law "providing for specific civil rights stated in terms of racial equality." Id.
(quoting Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780 ( 1966)). Second, "it must appear on the face of the notice, that the
removal petitioner is denied or cannot enforce the specified federal rights in the courts of (the) State." Id. Jerrick
has not identified , nor set forth any facts clearly pointing to, any federal law providing for specific civil rights stated
in terms of rac ial inequality, nor has he alleged that he would be unab le to enforce such a right in state court. Jerrick
cites additional statutory provisions pertaining to removal, but other than § 1443, those provisions apply to removal
of civil and not criminal cases. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 133 I, 1367, 144 1, 1446.

2

of the accusatory documents filed against him in Criminal Court, Queens County in action No.
l 4-CV-2734; and (3) to fil e a copy of the accusatory documents filed against him in Criminal
Court, Kings County in action No. 14-CV-28 30. (See No. 14-CV-2734 (Doc. No. 7); No. 14CV-2830 (Doc. No. 9); No. 14-CV-3545 (Doc. No. 6).) The Court warned Jerrick that failure to
comply with these instructions would result in dismissal of the actions. (See No. 14-CV-2734
(Doc. No. 7); No. 14-CV -2830 (Doc. No. 9); No. 14-CV-3545 (Doc. No. 6).) To date, Jerrick
has failed to compl y w ith the Court' s A ugust 25, 2014 Memorandum and Order.
Accordin gly, Jerrick' s petition for w rit of coram nobis in No. 14-CV-3545 is hereby
dismissed. The notices of removal in No. l 4-CV-2734 and No. l 4-CV-2830 are dismissed and
those actions are hereby remanded to the Criminal Courts of Queens and Kings County
respectively.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § l 915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order
would not be taken in good faith, and, therefore, informa pauperis status is deni ed for purpose of
an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
The Clerk of the Co urt is directed to mark these cases closed and to mail a copy of this
Memorandum and O rder to the plaintiff at the address the docket lists for him, and to note the
mailing on the dockets.

SO ORDERED.

s/Roslynn R. Mauskopf
ROSL YNN R. MAUSKOPF
United States District Judge
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
~0 , 2017

3