Clearfield Pol Dept v. Vora , 243 F. App'x 734 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    2007 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    8-1-2007
    Clearfield Pol Dept v. Vora
    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
    Docket No. 07-1940
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
    Recommended Citation
    "Clearfield Pol Dept v. Vora" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 637.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/637
    This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
    DLD-303                                                        NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ________________
    NO. 07-1940
    ________________
    CLEARFIELD BOROUGH POLICE DEPARTMENT
    v.
    CHANDAN S. VORA,
    Appellant
    ____________________________________
    On Appeal From the United States District Court
    For the Western District of Pennsylvania
    (D.C. Civ. No. 07-cv-00012J)
    District Judge: Honorable Gustave Diamond
    ____________________________________
    Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B)
    or Possible Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
    July 19, 2007
    BEFORE: BARRY, AMBRO and FISHER, CIRCUIT JUDGES.
    (Filed: August 1, 2007)
    _______________________
    OPINION
    _______________________
    PER CURIAM
    Chandan S. Vora appeals the order of the United States District Court for the
    Western District of Pennsylvania dismissing pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B) her
    “notice of removal” of various warrants and criminal complaints lodged against her in
    Johnstown and Clearfield, Pennsylvania.
    In January 2007, Vora filed a “notice of removal” seeking to remove an old
    Johnstown Police arrest warrant issued in 2003, a recent criminal complaint issued by the
    Johnstown Pennsylvania Police Department (No. CR-768-06), and a notice of an active
    arrest warrant (dated January 8, 2007) from the Clearfield Borough Police Department,
    charging her with a traffic violation. The Clearfield Police charged Vora with operating a
    vehicle without rear headlights. The Johnstown Police Complaint charges Vora with
    violations of Pennsylvania law, namely, littering and securing loads (loose garbage) in her
    vehicle. She claimed that the City of Johnstown Police Department, the Clearfield
    Borough Police, and other city officials discriminated against her on account of her
    religious and ethnic background by issuing baseless and unconstitutional criminal
    citations.
    The District Court dismissed the petition as frivolous under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B), holding that the “Notice of Removal” sought to attack state court
    proceedings over which the District Court had no jurisdiction. This timely appeal
    followed.
    Vora has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Because her
    appeal lacks arguable merit, we will dismiss it pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). See Allah
    v. Seiverling, 
    229 F.3d 220
    , 223 (3d Cir. 2000).
    2
    After reviewing Vora’s District Court pleadings and notice of appeal, we conclude
    that her notice of removal was correctly denied. Vora petitioned for removal, presumably
    under the civil rights removal statute, 
    28 U.S.C. § 1443
    , alleging that the arrest warrants
    and criminal complaint are part of a larger conspiracy by all city personnel to violate her
    civil rights. The civil rights removal statute applies only to the removal of state court
    proceedings. Id.; see also 
    28 U.S.C. § 1447
    (a). Even if we assume arguendo that the
    civil rights removal statute applies to the warrants and criminal complaint that Vora seeks
    to remove, her rambling, generalized, and unsupported allegations do not meet the
    specific criterion for § 1443 removal. See City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 
    384 U.S. 808
    ,
    827 (1966); Ronan v. Stone, 
    396 F.2d 502
    , 503 (1st Cir. 1968). We have no independent
    reason to believe that the Borough of Clearfield will not afford Vora any process she is
    due.
    Having found no legal merit to this cause, we will dismiss the appeal pursuant to
    
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B).
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-1940

Citation Numbers: 243 F. App'x 734

Filed Date: 8/1/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023