RAJIV SHASHIKANT SHAH
v.
LEON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
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 a criminal prosecution itself is not a 'formal expression of state law' that denies equal civil rights for the purpose of federal removal.
[1] A defendant seeking to remove a state criminal prosecution under Georgia v. …
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the very fact that he is being prosecuted is not a 'formal expression of state law' prohibiting the enforcement of any equality-based civil rights in state court”
Court distinguishing between a potential selective prosecution defense and the jurisdictional requirement for removal
Plaintiff sought to remove a state criminal proceeding to federal court, arguing selective prosecution based on nationality and ethnicity. The Magistr…
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 Organized Scheme To Defraud cases and more on FLexlaw
This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 5, and has also reviewed de novo Plaintiff's objections, ECF No. 10. As noted in the report and recommendation, Plaintiff has not met the two-part test for removal of a state criminal proceeding under Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780 (1966).
Plaintiff takes issue with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that this case be remanded because Plaintiff has not identified a formal expression of state law that will deny him equal civil rights in state court. Plaintiff contends that the very prosecution itself is selective and constitutes a "formal expression" because it substitutes "nationality and ethnicity as evidentiary predicates for fraud." ECF No. 10 at 2. But Plaintiff's argument is both nonsensical and disconnected from the facts as supported by the record. Here, Plaintiff has been charged with organized scheme
to defraud, criminal use of personal identification, money laundering, and securities fraud, based on the alleged fraudulent use of social security numbers and fingerprints and fraudulently notarizing documents for purposes of participating in Florida's Quota Alcoholic Beverage License Drawing. See ECF No. 8-1 at 6–12 (probable cause affidavit). Although Plaintiff may wish to present a selective prosecution defense to his charges, the very fact that he is being prosecuted is not a "formal expression of state law" prohibiting the enforcement of any equality-based civil rights in state court. See Cave v. Florida, 814 F. App'x 555, 556 (11th Cir. 2020) (describing "exceptionally high" standard for federal removal statute). In short, Plaintiff's objections do not call into question the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to remand this case for failure to meet the two-part test for federal removal.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
The report and recommendation, ECF No. 5, is accepted and adopted, over the Plaintiff's objections, as this Court's opinion. Accordingly, Plaintiff's case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court for the Second Judicial Circuit in and for Leon
County. The Clerk shall take all steps necessary to effect the remand and close the file.
SO ORDERED on December 30, 2025.
s/Mark E. Walker United States District Judge
3