UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

STATE OF NEW YORK , et al ., ) ) Plaintiff s, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:22- cv -03704 ( UNA ) ) MARK PELLEGRINO TR U ST , ) Registered owner of PELLEGRINO, ) MARK corp. sole, Beneficial Owner ) 1st Lien Holder of PELLEGRINO, ) MARK Estate ) d/b/a Mark Pellegrino ) ) Defendant . ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the c ourt on its initial review of defendant, “Mark Pellegrino Trust, Registered Owner of Pellegrino, Mark, corp. sole, B enefi cial Owner 1 st Lien Holder of Pellegrino Mark Estate d/b/a Mark Pellegrino’s” purported pro se notice of removal, ECF No. 1, and amended notice or removal, ECF No. 5. Mr. Pellegrino has also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) , ECF No. 2, a motion to expedite, ECF No. 3, and a motion for protective order, ECF No. 4. For the reasons explained below, the court will dismiss this matter and deny the pending motions. Mr. Pellegrino’s submissions are prolix, lengthy, disorganized, and extremely difficult to follow. Additionally, they are misleading. Per the documents he has submitted, Mr. Pellegrino

was a defendant in criminal matter s already prosecuted in the City Court of Buffalo, New York , Case Nos. CR -04408-21 ; CR -04181-21. He now , on behalf of his own “ trust ” and “ estate ,” attempts to sue numerous parties involved with those criminal matters, arising from his disagreement over pro perty that he believes was unlawfully seized as a result of th ose proceedings.

He faces several hurdles that he cannot overcome.First and foremost, although Mr. Pellegrino has presented this matter as a removal, it was not, in fact, removed from the Cit y Court of Buffalo, or any state or local court. Indeed, a search

reveals that the criminal matters that he seeks to “remove” are no longer active cases. See NY

State Unified C t. System Case Search, https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcivil/ecourtsMain at “WebCriminal” (“ WebCriminal provides information on pending criminal cases with future appearance dates for selected New York State Courts of criminal jurisdiction. ”) (last visited Dec. 16, 2022). Mr. Pellegrino cannot remove cases that are no longer active; indeed, such matters

mu st be removed “ not later than 30 days after the arraignment in the State court, or at any time before trial, whichever is earlier,” 28 U.S. C. § 1455(b)(1), and according to Mr. Pellegrino’s own exhibits, he was arraigned nearly a year and a half ago. Consequently, he is now foreclosed from

remov ing those criminal actions. Second, even if he could still remove those actions , a defendant is required to “ file [for removal] in the district court of the United States for the district and division within which such prosecution is pending .” 28 U.S. Code § 1455. As the underlying action s were not pending in the District of Columbia, they may not be removed to this c ourt. The only appropriate jurisdiction for

removal would have been the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. Third, Mr. Pellegrino has attempted to proceed with this matter, at least in part, or at most entirely, on behalf of an estate and/or trust. But, “ [i] n all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1654. As an artificial entity, a trust cannot proceed in federal court without licensed counsel. See Fromm v. Duffy as Tr. of Gary Fromm Family Tr ., No.19

- cv - 1121 (EGS), 2020 WL 109056 at *4 (D.D.C. Jan. 9, 2020) (noting that “[c]ourts have interpreted [§ 1654] to preclude a non

- attorney from appearing on behalf of another person or an entity such as a corporation, partnership, or trust”);see also Casares v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. , No. 13

- cv - 1633, 2015 WL 13679889 at *2 (D.D.C. May 4, 2015) (a litigant proceeding pro se “ cannot represent the trust in federal court, even as the trustee, as he is not a lice nsed attorney”) , citing Hale Joy Trust v. Comm'r of IRS , 57 Fed. App’x. 323, 324 (9th Cir. 2003) and Knoefler v. United Bank of Bismark , 20 F.3d 347, 348 (8th Cir. 1994). In addition, Mr. Pellegrino has explicitly filed the pending IFP motion on behalf of the “Mark Pellegrino Trust,” however, an artificial entity cannot proceed under the IFP statute , 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); the Supreme Court has interpreted that provision as applicable “only to individuals” or “natural persons,” not “artificial entities.” Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council , 506 U.S. 194, 201

– 07 (1993). Finally, in essence, Mr. Pellegrino has attempted to open a civil matter by filing motion s without a complaint, which he may not do. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 3; I n re Sealed Case No. 98

- 3077 , 151 F.3d 1059 , 1069 n.9 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (noting that a civil action “m ust be initiated by complaint and not by motion ”) , citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 3; see also Adair v. England , 193 F. Supp. 2d 196 , 200 (D.D.C . 2002) (“ A party commences a civil action by filing a complaint. . . [and] [w] hen no complaint is filed, the court lacks jurisdiction [.] ”) , citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 3. In short, plaintiff is asking a federal court in Washington, D.C. to intervene in a criminal matter in state court in New York, and this court has no power to do so. Consequently, this case is dismissed, and all of the pending motions are de nied. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

AMY BERMAN JACKSON Date: December 21, 2022 United States District Judge