Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_15-cv-00151/USCOURTS-ared-4_15-cv-00151-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

LITTLE ROCK DIVISION

MIESHA BURRIS SHEPHERD PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 4:15-cv-00151 KGB

STATE OF ARKANSAS and

CITY OF PINE BLUFF DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Plaintiff Miesha Burris Shepherd petitions to remove a state court criminal action to this 

Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 and requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. Nos. 1, 2). 

For the following reasons, the Court denies Ms. Shepherd’s petition for removal; to the extent 

necessary remands her criminal action back to the District Court of Jefferson County, Arkansas;

and denies as moot Ms. Shepherd’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 2). 

The Court denies all other pending motions as moot. 

Under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2), “the court shall dismiss the [in forma pauperis] case at any 

time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . is frivolous or malicious; [or] fails to state a 

claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In this case, Ms. Shepherd 

petitions to remove a state prosecution against her from the District Court of Jefferson County, 

Arkansas, to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1443. 

Section 1443 provides for the removal by a defendant of any civil action or criminal 

prosecution “[a]gainst 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. . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1443; Neal v. Wilson, 920 F. Supp. 976, 

984 (E.D. Ark. 1996) aff’d, 112 F.3d 351 (8th Cir. 1997). In Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U.S. 

213 (1975), the Supreme Court established a two part test for § 1443 removal petitions. 

Case 4:15-cv-00151-KGB Document 6 Filed 08/12/15 Page 1 of 4
“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.’” Johnson, 421 

U.S. at 219 (quoting Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 792 (1966)). A state court defendant’s 

claim that “prosecution and conviction will violate rights under constitutional or statutory 

provisions of general applicability or under statutes not protecting against racial discrimination” 

is insufficient for removal. Id.; Neal, 920 F. Supp. at 984 (“The Supreme Court has held that the 

phrase ‘any law providing for equal rights’ must be construed to mean any law providing for 

specific civil rights stated in terms of racial equality.”). “Removal under § 1443(1) is limited to

the rare situations in which a defendant cannot enforce the right to racial equality in state courts.” 

N. Carolina v. Mitchell, No. 5:14-CR-156-D, 2014 WL 7399121, at *2 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 9, 2014).

Second, it must appear “that the removal petitioner is ‘denied or cannot enforce’ the 

specified federal rights ‘in the courts of [the] State.’” Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) (1988)); 

see also People of State of Colo. v. Lopez, 919 F.2d 131, 132 (10th Cir. 1990). To claim that she 

is being denied or cannot enforce her equal rights in the courts of Arkansas, Ms. Shepherd must 

allege the following: 

“that there is a basis for a firm prediction that such rights [of racial equality] will 

be denied in state court or that the pendency of the prosecution without more, is a 

deprivation of such a federally protected right. It is not enough to show that he 

has a defense with more or less hope of its successful assertion in an impartial 

tribunal; he must show that his federally secured right of racial equality is denied 

by the pendency of the proceeding or by reasons of the operation of a pervasive 

and explicit state or federal law that those rights will inevitably be denied by . . . 

bringing the defendant to trial in the state court.”

Neal, 920 F. Supp. at 984 (quoting State of South Carolina v. Moore, 447 F.2d 1067, 1070 (4th 

Cir. 1971)). “This particular aspect of section 1443 ‘normally requires that the denial be 

manifest in a formal expression of state law, such as a state legislative or constitutional 

2

Case 4:15-cv-00151-KGB Document 6 Filed 08/12/15 Page 2 of 4
provision.’” Akhlaghi v. Berry, 294 F. Supp. 2d 1238, 1242 (D. Kan. 2003) (quoting Johnson, 

421 U.S. at 219). 

In this case, Ms. Shepherd alleges that she “was in the Dub Brassell Detention Center the 

[sic] Jefferson County Jail illegally locked her up on false charges she [sic] is a victim of Assault 

and Battery and Aggravated Robbery and theft of property” (Dkt. No. 1, at 2). Ms. Shepherd 

also states that she “was stabbed by her estranged friend” and that she “is a victim of Aggravated 

Robbery by her estranged friend that stole her purse with the her [sic] checkbook in the purse

and wrote checks that cause Miesha Burris, Shepherd to be illegally charged for hot checks in the 

District Court of Jefferson Court Division” (Id.). Ms. Shepherd maintains that she “is a victim of 

economics assassination, arbitrary discrimination” and vaguely references certain alleged rights 

under the United States Constitution, including the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment 

and due process and equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment (Id. at 2-3). 

Ms. Shepherd has failed to allege that she has been denied or cannot enforce the right to 

racial equality in the Arkansas state courts. See Neal, 920 F. Supp. at 984-85 (“Allegations that 

an individual is being denied equal protection by discriminatory prosecution of professional 

misconduct and assorted allegations of denial of due process have been held insufficient to 

support removal under [§ 1443]. . . . [A]llegations regarding the denial of constitutional rights 

generally are clearly insufficient to support removal under § 1443.”). Even if Ms. Shepherd 

alleges a cause of action under a statute securing racial equality, she has not alleged facts 

indicating that she would be unable to exercise or enforce her rights under such statutes in state 

court. See id. Accordingly, Ms. Shepherd fails to allege facts that support removal of her 

criminal prosecution to this Court under § 1443. Further, to the extent that Ms. Shepherd 

attempts to remove her state court criminal action to this Court under 28 U.S.C § 1446, the Court 

3

Case 4:15-cv-00151-KGB Document 6 Filed 08/12/15 Page 3 of 4
denies such petition for removal as § 1446 concerns the “procedure for removal of civil actions” 

and is not a proper basis for removal of Ms. Shepherd’s case. 28 U.S.C. § 1446. 

Therefore, upon a screening of Ms. Shepherd’s action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and 

for the foregoing reasons, the Court dismisses without prejudice Ms. Shepherd’s petition for 

removal (Dkt. No. 1) and, to the extent necessary, remands her criminal action back to the 

District Court of Jefferson County, Arkansas. Accordingly, the Court denies as moot Ms. 

Shepherd’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 2). The Court denies all other 

pending motions as moot. 

SO ORDERED this 12th day of August, 2015.

________________________________

KRISTINE G. BAKER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

Case 4:15-cv-00151-KGB Document 6 Filed 08/12/15 Page 4 of 4