City of Euclid et al v. Ziegler
Order of Remand signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 3/10/17. The Court remands this case to the Euclid Municipal Court for the reasons set forth in this order. (D,MA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
CITY OF EUCLID, et al.,
CASE NO. 1:17 CV 465
JUDGE JAMES S. GWIN
ORDER OF REMAND
On March 7, 2017, Joseph Ziegler filed a Notice of Removal, seeking to bring a
misdemeanor criminal case charging him with disorderly conduct, pending against him in the
City of Euclid Municipal Court, before this court..
Citing 28 U.S.C. § 1443, Ziegler predicates removal on the ground that the charges
against him “blatantly violat[e] this Defendant-Petitioner’s clearly established Federal Civil
rights protected under Equal Protection Clause to Fair Jury Trial, Due Process of Law, Access to
the Courts, Right to Peacefully Assemble, Associate, Interstate Travel, Commerce, Privileges,
Immunities and Comity Clause and/or Federal Constitutional Rights protected under Federal
Law . . . ” Complaint, p. 2.
The provisions for removal of state criminal cases have specific application in very
limited circumstances. See, City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808 (1966); State of
Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780 (1966).
Removal may occur in cases where a criminal prosecution is:
(1) Against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of [a State] a
right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United
(2) For any act under color of authority derived from any law providing for equal
rights, or for refusing to do any act on the ground that it would be inconsistent with
28 U.S.C. § 1443.
As regards subsection (1), “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.’ Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 219 (1975)(citation omitted). “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. That a removal petitioner will be denied due process of law because the criminal law
under which he is being prosecuted is allegedly vague or that the prosecution is assertedly a
sham, corrupt, or without evidentiary basis does not, standing alone, satisfy the requirements of
§ 1443(1).” Id.
Nor is subsection (2) conceivably applicable, as “the first clause, ‘for any act under color
of authority derived from any law providing for equal rights . . . has been examined by the
Supreme Court and held available only to federal officers and to persons assisting such officers
in the performance of their official duties.” Detroit Police Lieutenants and Sargeants Ass’n v.
City of Detroit, 597 F.2d 566, 568 (6th Cir. 1979)(citing Greenwood, 384 U.S. at 815).
Even construing Defendant’s Notice liberally, it does not contain allegations setting forth
a valid basis, under the foregoing standards, for removal of his criminal case to this court.
Accordingly, this matter is remanded to the Euclid Municipal Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 10, 2017
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
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?