STATE OF FLORIDA
v.
ANDERSON
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the defendant's notice of removal of a state criminal prosecution was improper because it did not meet the strict requirements of the federal removal statutes.
The defendant, facing state criminal charges for traffic violations, attempted to remove the prosecution to federal court, alleging violations of her …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) cases and more on FLexlaw
(quoting Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 792 (1966)). These rights do not include rights of “general application available to all persons or citizens. Id. (quoting Georgia, 384 U.S. at 792). “Second, the petitioner must show that he [or she] has been denied or cannot enforce that right in the state courts.” Id.
(citing Georgia, 384 U.S. at 794). Defendant does not describe in the notice of removal how her cause for removal relates to her race. See Morris, 2020 WL 5215300, at *2. Further, Defendant does not describe how she cannot enforce these rights in the state court. Section 1443(1) does not provide Defendant with a basis of removal. Section 1443(2) is likewise inapplicable here. “The United States Supreme Court has held that removal under § 1443(2) ‘is available only to federal officers and to persons assisting such officers in the performance of their official duties.’ City of Greenwood, Mississippi v. Peacock et al., 384 U.S. 808, 815, 824 (1966) (‘[W]e hold that the second subsection of [§] 1443 confers a privilege of removal only upon federal officers or agents and those authorized to act with or for them in affirmatively executing duties under any federal law providing for equal civil rights.’).” Scheringer v. Johnson, No. 8:17-CV-982- MSS-AEP, 2017 WL 4278502, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017). Defendant does not assert that she is a federal officer or a person assisting a federal officer in the performance of an official duty. Remand is appropriate here. See § 1455(b)(4) (“The United States district court in which such notice 1s filed shall examine the notice 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.”). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. The case is REMANDED to the County Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, in and for Duval County, Florida. 2. After remand has been effected, the Clerk shall terminate any pending motions or deadlines and close the file. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida the 24th day of February, 2023.
Cimotheg Corrig on (Ny) TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN <=es" —*United States District Judge ckm Copies: Pro se Defendant 2104 Monteau Drive Jacksonville, FL 32210 Clerk, County Court Fourth Judicial Circuit, Duval County Counsel of record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780 (U.S. 1966)
- City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808 (U.S. 1966)
- Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (U.S. 2002)
- State of Ala. (Alabama State University) v. Conley, 245 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2001)