2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-21-2009 

# C onspirat ors v

. C h and an V

or a P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-2566

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " C on sp ir at or s v

. C h and an V

or a" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 625. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/625A L D - 301 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 2566

___________ CONSP I RATORS v . CHAND AN S. VORA

A ppel l ant

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 09- cv- 00082) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e G us t ave D i amond

____________________________________ S u b m itt e d f

o r P o ss ib le D ism iss a l d u e to Ju risd ictio n a l D e f e c t, P o ssible D ism issal Pu rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ) or P o s s ib le S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 A ugus t27, 2009 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , FU E N T E S and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: Sept ember21, 2009 )

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM C handan S. V or a appe al s fr om an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfort he W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a di s m i s s i ng pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) her “pet i t i on forr emoval ” fi l ed on A pr i l 6, 2009.V o ra sta tes th a t d u e to th e a lleg e d c o n sp ira to ria l ac tiv iti e s, sh e “ d o e s n o t h a v e tim e to 1 eatal s o, m anyt i m es [. ] [A ] nd V or a has t o m ake s ur e thats he ca n getar ound, as s he has n o b o d yto b an k o n , o r [a n yb o d y ] w h o w il l t ak e c are o f h er a t any ti m e a s h er p are n ts are d e a d a n d c irc u m sta n c e s g o t p e rp e tra ted o n V o ra [ so ] th a t sh e c o u ld n o t ev e n m a k e v isits t o I ndi a t o hers i s t er[and] br other s , s uch thatbyfi l i ng s uch fa l s e cha r ges on m e, t i m e and a g a i n , mo r e th a n 5 0 , th e s e c o n s p i r a t o r s h a v e ma n a g e d t o c u tme o f f c o mp l e t e l yf

r o m my 2 A s s he has done r epea t edl ybefor e, V or a fi l ed a “ pet i t i on forr emoval ” i n the D istri ct C o u rt . S h e w an ted a ll ch arg es a g ains t her d ism issed an d sh e so u g h t fed era l cou rt over s i ghtof and pr ot ect i on fr om “cons pi r at or s ” empl oy ed byC ambri a C ountypol i ce offi cer s and the magi s t er i al di s tr i ctcourt , w ho, s he s ai d, i s s ued fa l s e ci t at i ons agai ns ther a n d d e m a n d e d th a t sh e p a yo v e rd u e f in e s a n d c o sts to th e c o u n ty , d e sp ite h e r in a b ili tyto pay . She cl ai m ed thatr aci al and r el i gi ous bi gotrym ot i vat ed thes e cha r ges . I n her s uppl ementt o t he pet i t i on, V or a att ache d a non- tr aff i c ci t at i on ( N o. N T - 0000222- 09) char gi ng herw i th “s catt errubbi s h upon l and/ s tr eam” dat ed A pr i l 1, 2009, tw o not i ces of over due fi nes and cos t s ( i n C P- 11- C R - 0002644- 2006 and C P- 11- C R - 0000409- 2000) t ot al i ng $750, and an unda t ed “pe t i t i on” s ubm i t t ed bythe C i tyof J ohns t ow n, i n w hi ch the C i tys oughta courtor derperm i t t i ng i tt o ent erV or a’ s pr opertyforthe purpos e of re m o v in g tra sh a n d to se ll an yitem s o f v a lu e , the p ro c e e d s o f

w h ich w o u ld b e a p p lied to th e c o s to f

th e tr a s h r e m o v a l b y t h e C i ty. T h e D istric t C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t th e “ P e tit io n f o r R e m o v a l” s o u g h t to a ttac k sta te c o u rt p ro c e e d in g s o v e r w h ich th e D istric t C o u rt h a d n o ju risd ictio n . V o ra f iled a tim e ly m ot i on t o vaca t e, i n w hi ch s he r eas s ert ed, i nt eral i a, thats he has been t ot al l ydi s abl ed s i nce 1983. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed the mot i on. T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed.

1ki ns [s o] thatnobodyw ant s t o acc eptm e as a fa m i l ym emberand . . . i ti s i m pos s i bl e for

V o ra to liv e a lo n e in In d ia w ith o u t a f a m ilym e m b e r ta k in g c a re o f h e r.” S e e M o tio n to V aca t e at19. V or a has been gr ant ed l eave t o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s on appea l . B eca us e her appea l l acks ar guabl e mer i t , w e w i l l di s m i s s i tpur s uantt o § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) . See A l l ah v . S eive rl ing , 2 2 9 F . 3 d 2 2 0 , 2 2 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). A l though w e s ym pathi ze w i th V or a’ s per s onal har ds hi ps , aft err evi ew i ng the D i s tr i ctC our tpl eadi ngs and not i ce of appea l , w e conc l ude as a mat t erof l aw thather p e tit io n w a s c o rre c tlyd e n ied . V o ra p e tit io n e d f o r re m o v a l, pr e su m a b lyu n d e r th e c iv il rig h ts re m o v a l sta tu te, 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 4 4 3 . T h e c iv il righ ts re m o v a l sta tu te a p p lies o n lyto the r emoval of s t at e courtpr ocee di ngs . I d. ; s ee a l s o 28 U . S. C . § 1447( a) . W e doubtt hat anyof the pr ocee di ngs V or a s eeks t o r emove qual i fi es as a s t at e courtpr ocee di ng. E ven i f w e as s um e ar guendo thatthe ci vi l r i ght s r emoval s t atut e appl i es t o m uni ci pal code vi ol at i on pr ocee di ngs , t o t he muni ci pal pet i t i on t o ent eront o V or a’ s l and, and t o not i ces of over due fi nes i s s ued bythe C ambri a C ountyC our tof C om m on Pl eas , V or a’ s r ambl i ng, gener al i zed, and uns uppor t ed al l egat i ons do notm eetthe s peci fi c cr i t er i on for§ 1443 r emoval . See C i tyof G r eenw ood v. Peacoc k, 384 U . S. 808, 827 ( 1966) ; R onan v. St one, 3 9 6 F . 2 d 5 0 2 , 5 0 3 (1 C ir . 1 9 6 8 ). st H a v in g f o u n d n o leg a l m e rit to th is c a u se , w e w ill d ism iss th e a p p e a l p u rsu a n t to 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) . V or a’ s m ot i on fora s t ayi s deni ed.