State Of New York v. Sage-El
ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis: The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted for the purposes of this order. For the reasons explained in the attached order, the case is remanded to the Crimina l Court of the City of New York, Kings County for all further proceedings. I respectfully direct the Clerk of Court to promptly mail a certified copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County. See 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(4). Ordered by Judge John Gleeson on 2/12/2016. (Hossain, Samia)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------------STATE OF NEW YORK,
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
16-CV-584 (JG) (LB)
SAGE-EL d/b/a WINSTON GREGORY HALL,
------------------------------------------------------------------JOHN GLEESON, United States District Judge:
On February 3, 2016, defendant Sage-El, appearing pro se, filed this notice of
removal from state court. I grant Sage-El’s request to proceed in forma pauperis solely for the
purpose of this Order. For the reasons that follow, the action is remanded to state court.
On or about January 25, 2016, Sage-El was arrested for failure to comply with a
traffic control sign, obstructing governmental administration in the second degree, resisting
arrest, aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second and third degrees,
disorderly conduct, and unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle. See Notice of Removal, ECF
No. 1, at 9-10. A criminal complaint was filed against Sage-El for these charges in the Criminal
Court of the City of New York, Kings County. See id. Although Sage-El has attached various
documents to the Notice of Removal, he does not provide a valid basis for removing the action to
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal law provides for the removal of a civil action or criminal prosecution
from state court to federal court if the defendant “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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1); see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 1455. A petition for removal under Section 1443(1) “must satisfy a two-pronged test.”
Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 219 (1975). “First, it must appear that the right allegedly
denied the removal petitioner arises under a federal law ‘providing for specific civil rights stated
in terms of racial equality.’” Id. (quoting Georgia v. Rachel, 284 U.S. 780, 792 (1966)).
“Claims that prosecution and conviction will violate rights under constitutional or statutory
provisions of general applicability or under statutes not protecting against racial discrimination,
will not suffice.” Id. 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. (quoting Georgia, 384 U.S. at 803); see also Best v. State of New York, 2014 WL 5305991
(E.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2014) (remanding pro se petitioner’s notice of removal to state court). Here,
Sage-El fails to provide any basis for removal of the pending criminal prosecution to this Court.
As a result, the case is remanded back to the state court.
For the reasons set forth above, I deny Sage-El’s Notice of Removal and remand
this action to the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County for all further
proceedings. I respectfully direct the Clerk of Court to promptly mail a certified copy of this
Order to the Clerk of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County. See 28
U.S.C. § 1455(b)(4). I certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this
Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the
purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
John Gleeson, U.S.D.J.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
February 12, 2016
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?