Unknown v. Corrado

Filing 10

ORDER granting 6 Motion for Reconsideration re 6 ORDER OF SUMMARY REMAND. SO ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is granted, but the action is remanded to the State Court for the reasons stated in the August 25, 2015 Remand Order. The C lerk of the Court shall: (1) mail a certified copy of this Order to the clerk of the New York State Court, Suffolk County, First District Court; (2) close this case; and, (3) pursuant to Rule 77(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, serve no tice of entry of this Order upon all parties as provided in Rule 5(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and record such service on the docket. The Court certifies 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 any appeal. CM to pro se deft and Suffolk County, First District Court. Ordered by Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein on 10/26/2015. (Florio, Lisa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------X
UNKNOWN STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY
POLICE,
Accuser,
-against-

FILED 
CLERK 

10/26/2015 12:08 pm

U.S. DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
LONG ISLAND OFFICE 

ORDER
15-CV-4843 (SJF)(AYS)

CHRISTOPHER CORRADO,
Defendant.
-------------------------------------------------------------X
FEUERSTEIN, J.
Defendant Christopher Corrado (“Corrado”), pro se, moves for reconsideration of this
Court’s August 25, 2015 order remanding his case to the New York State, First District Court of
Suffolk County (“State Court”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(4) (“Remand Order”). The
motion for reconsideration is granted and upon reconsideration, the Court adheres to its original
decision.
I.

Background
On or about April 16, 2015, Corrado was arrested and charged with assault in the second

degree with intent to cause physical injury to an officer, in violation of New York Penal Law
§ 120.05(3), a D felony. Corrado was arraigned on April 17, 2015 in the State Court under case
number 2015SU016208. On August 12, 2015, Corrado filed a Notice of Removal seeking to
remove the action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1443(1), 1455. [DE 1, Notice of
Removal.] On August 25, 2015, this Court summarily remanded the action to the State Court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(4). 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(4) (“If it clearly appears on the face of
the notice [of removal of a criminal prosecution] and any exhibits annexed thereto that removal
should not be permitted, the court shall make an order for summary remand.”). On September 4,

2015, Corrado moved for reconsideration of the Remand Order and subsequently filed ancillary
papers in purported support of his motion for reconsideration.
II.

Discussion
Under Section 1455(b)(4), this Court “shall examine the notice [of removal] promptly. If

it clearly appears on the face of the notice and any exhibits annexed thereto that removal should
not be permitted, the court shall make an order for summary remand.” 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(4).
A defendant may remove a state criminal case to federal court under certain circumstances, such
as when the case involves racial inequality and implicates the defendant’s civil rights, or where
the defendant is a federal officer satisfying certain additional requirements. Id. at §§ 1442, 1443;
see City of N. Las Vegas v. Davis, C.A. No. 13-156, 2013 WL 2394930, at *2 (D. Nev. May 30,
2013) (discussing when criminal defendant may seek to remove case to federal court); Alabama
v. Thomason, C.A. No. 15-327, 2015 WL 3849637 (M.D. Ala. June 22, 2015) (same, and
denying motion for reconsideration); accord Arizona v. Files, C.A. No. 13-436, 2013 WL
3379363 (D. Ariz. July 8, 2013) (granting motion for reconsideration because defendant was,
inter alia, a federal employee falling under § 1442(a)(1)).
None of the limited circumstances supporting removal exist here. [See DE 6-7, Mot. for
Reconsideration and Notice.] As a result, this Court grants Corrado’s motion for reconsideration
for the purpose of reviewing his ancillary papers, but it remands his action to the State Court for
the reasons stated in the Remand Order.
III.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the motion for reconsideration is granted, but the action is

remanded to the State Court for the reasons stated in the August 25, 2015 Remand Order. The
Clerk of the Court shall: (1) mail a certified copy of this Order to the clerk of the New York State
Court, Suffolk County, First District Court; (2) close this case; and, (3) pursuant to Rule 77(d)(1) of

2

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, serve notice of entry of this Order upon all parties as provided
in Rule 5(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and record such service on the docket.
The Court certifies 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 any
appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45, 82 S. Ct. 917, 8 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1962).

SO ORDERED.
/s/ Sandra J. Feuerstein
Sandra J. Feuerstein
United States District Judge

Dated: October 26, 2015
Central Islip, New York

3