2009 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

9-21-2009

Conspirators v. Chandan Vora

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 09-2566

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Conspirators v. Chandan Vora" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 625.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/625
ALD-301 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2566

___________

CONSPIRATORS

v.

CHANDAN S. VORA

Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 09-cv-00082)

District Judge: Honorable Gustave Diamond

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal due to Jurisdictional Defect,

Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or 

Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

August 27, 2009

Before: SLOVITER, FUENTES and JORDAN, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: September 21, 2009 )

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Chandan S. Vora appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the

Western District of Pennsylvania dismissing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) her

“petition for removal” filed on April 6, 2009.
 Vora states that due to the alleged conspiratorial activities, she “does not have time to 1

eat also, many times[.] [A]nd Vora has to make sure that she can get around, as she has

nobody to bank on, or [anybody] who will take care of her at anytime as her parents are

dead and circumstances got perpetrated on Vora [so] that she could not even make visits

to India to her sister [and] brothers, such that by filing such false charges on me, time and

again, more than 50, these conspirators have managed to cut me off completely from my

2

As she has done repeatedly before, Vora filed a “petition for removal” in the

District Court. She wanted all charges against her dismissed and she sought federal court

oversight of and protection from “conspirators” employed by Cambria County police

officers and the magisterial district court, who, she said, issued false citations against her

and demanded that she pay overdue fines and costs to the county, despite her inability to

pay. She claimed that racial and religious bigotry motivated these charges. In her

supplement to the petition, Vora attached a non-traffic citation (No. NT-0000222-09)

charging her with “scatter rubbish upon land/stream” dated April 1, 2009, two notices of

overdue fines and costs (in CP-11-CR-0002644-2006 and CP-11-CR-0000409-2000)

totaling $750, and an undated “petition” submitted by the City of Johnstown, in which the

City sought a court order permitting it to enter Vora’s property for the purpose of

removing trash and to sell any items of value, the proceeds of which would be applied to

the cost of the trash removal by the City.

The District Court concluded that the “Petition for Removal” sought to attack state

court proceedings over which the District Court had no jurisdiction. Vora filed a timely

motion to vacate, in which she reasserted, inter alia, that she has been totally disabled

since 1983. The District Court denied the motion. This timely appeal followed. 1
kins [so] that nobody wants to accept me as a family member and . . . it is impossible for

Vora to live alone in India without a family member taking care of her.” See Motion to

Vacate at 19.

Vora has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Because her

appeal lacks arguable merit, we will dismiss it pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). See Allah

v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000).

Although we sympathize with Vora’s personal hardships, after reviewing the

District Court pleadings and notice of appeal, we conclude as a matter of law that her

petition was correctly denied. Vora petitioned for removal, presumably under the civil

rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1443. The civil rights removal statute applies only to

the removal of state court proceedings. Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1447(a). We doubt that

any of the proceedings Vora seeks to remove qualifies as a state court proceeding. Even

if we assume arguendo that the civil rights removal statute applies to municipal code

violation proceedings, to the municipal petition to enter onto Vora’s land, and to notices

of overdue fines issued by the Cambria County Court of Common Pleas, Vora’s rambling,

generalized, and unsupported allegations do not meet the specific criterion for § 1443

removal. See City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 827 (1966); Ronan v. Stone,

396 F.2d 502, 503 (1 Cir. 1968). st

Having found no legal merit to this cause, we will dismiss the appeal pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Vora’s motion for a stay is denied.