BLD-113 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-4375

___________

MICHAEL JOHN PISKANIN, JR.,

 Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 11-cr-00661)

District Judge: Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to

Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

February 9, 2012

Before: SCIRICA, SMITH AND CHAGARES, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: March 9, 2012)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Michael J. Piskanin, Jr., a Pennsylvania state inmate, commenced this pro se 

action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by 

filing a “Petition/Application for Removal of State Court Prosecution.” Piskanin 

claimed, as he has in many previous actions, that he is a “federal law enforcement
2

operative-contractor,” and that he is entitled to protection from numerous public officials 

who have allegedly engaged in retaliatory acts, including his own criminal prosecution. 

Piskanin asked the District Court to remove his state criminal proceedings to federal 

court and seeks relief under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1442, and 28 U.S.C. § 1446.

In Piskanin’s previous actions, including those in which he attempted to remove 

proceedings to federal court, the government has disputed that he was a federal officer or 

agent or that he was acting under any office or agency of the United States. In this case, 

the District Court determined—again—that Piskanin failed to show that he was a federal 

officer acting under color of the United States, and thus did not advance any authority 

that would permit the court to grant him any relief. Piskanin filed a motion for 

reconsideration; the District Court determined that Piskanin had not met the standard for 

reconsideration, and denied the motion.

Piskanin filed a timely notice of appeal. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1291. Piskanin’s claim that he is entitled to removal is meritless. Section 

1442(a)(1) provides that a federal officer may remove to federal court any action brought 

against him in state court for official conduct. See Feidt v. Owens Corning Fiberglas 

Corp., 153 F.3d 124, 127 (3d Cir. 1998). To remove under § 1442(a)(1), a defendant 

must establish, among other things, that “the plaintiff’s claims are based upon the 

defendant’s conduct ‘acting under’ a federal office” and that “there is a causal nexus 

between the claims and the conduct performed under color of a federal office.” Id. 

Piskanin’s conspiratorial allegations about official retaliation against him cannot support 

§ 1442(a)(1) removal. Moreover, to the extent his removal petition was based on § 
3

1446(c)(1), it was plainly untimely. Accordingly, the District Court properly dismissed 

the petition.

In his motion for reconsideration, Piskanin reiterated his allegations and requests 

for relief. He failed to present any argument or evidence that would meet one of the 

criteria for reconsideration, as found in Max’s Seafood Café by Lou Ann, Inc. v. 

Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). Therefore, the District Court did not abuse 

its discretion in denying the motion. See id. at 673.

 Because we conclude that this appeal presents no substantial question, we will 

summarily affirm. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.