SMITH v. COMM. MONTGOMERY COUNTY et al
MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 3/5/12. 3/6/12 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER. (jpd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
COMM. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, K.M.
VALENTINE, ET AL
On January 6, 2012, petitioner filed a document entitled "Emergency WritlRemoval from
County to Fed. Court" on a form entitled "Subpoena to TestifY at a Hearing or Trial in a Criminal
Case." Attached to that document were several documents, one of which was entitled
"Notice/claim of man's injury to his person, property warranting Great writ," and made reference
to "Organic law and "'Great Writ' of Habeas Corpus.'" Because petitioner fails to state any basis
for federal removal jurisdiction, the Court denies his Emergency Writ and dismisses the habeas
It appears from the papers submitted by petitioner that he was arrested in Lower Merion
Township for driving with a suspended license in September of 2011. He pled guilty in the
Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, and he is presently confined and awaiting
sentencing. In his request for removal, petitioner claims that his arrest was unlawful. He does
not provide statutory or any other authority for removal.
28 U.S.C. § 1443 provides for removal of state criminal and civil actions, as follows:
Any of the following civil actions or criminal prosecutions, commenced in a State court
may be removed by the defendant to the district court of the United States for the district
and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:
(1) Against any person who 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;
(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 such law.
The Supreme Court has held that:
a removal petition under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) must satisfy a two-pronged test. 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.... Second, it must
appear in accordance with the provisions of § 1443(1), that the removal petitioner is
denied or cannot enforce the specified federal rights in the courts of the State.
Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 219 (1975) (citations omitted).
Petitioner has not alleged anywhere in his petition t~at the state court criminal case which
he seeks to remove involves issues of racial inequality, or that his federal rights were denied, or
cannot be enforced, in state Court. See, State v. Haws, 131 F.3d 1205, 1209 (7th Cir. 1997). For
those reasons, petitioner's criminal case cannot be removed to this Court.
Habeas Corpus Petition
Petitioner's purported habeas corpus petition is dismissed for a number of reasons, the
most important of which is that it makes- absolutely no sense and cannot be construed as a
document asserting a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. For that reason, the Court need
not address any other issues raised by the so-called petition for writ of habeas corpus, including
the fact that it was not filed on the forms specified by Local Civil Rule 9 .3(b) and Rule 2 of the
Rules governing § 2254 case.
For the foregoing reasons, the "Emergency WritlRemoval from County to Fed. Court" is
denied, and the petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed.
An appropriate Order follows:
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?