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 9-11-2009 

# S t ate of N J v . James Thom a s, S r

. 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 . 09-1447

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 " S t at e of N J v . J ame s Thom as, S r

. " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 678. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/678NOT 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- 1447

___________ STATE OF N EW J ERSEY

v. J A M E S B R E N T T H O M A S , S R ., A p p e l l a n t

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . N o. 09- cv- 00210) Di s tr i c tJ u d g e : Ho n o r a b l e Re n e e M . Bu mb

____________________________________ S u b m itted f

o r P o ssible D ism issal fo r L ac k o f A p p ell ate Ju ri sd ict ion o r 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 J ul y30, 2009 B efor e: M C K E E , FI SH E R and C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: Sept ember11, 2009)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM J ames B. T hom as , Sr . , pr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s fr om the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or der re m a n d in g h is c a s e to N e w J e rs e ys ta te c o u rt f o r l a c k o f

s u b je c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n . B eca us e the appe al pr es ent s no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on, w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i r m the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s or der . See 3d C i r . L A R 27. 4; I . O . P. 10. 6.2

T hom as fi l ed a not i ce i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof N ew Jer seyseeki ng t o rem ov e, pu rs uan tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 44 3 an d several otherst atutes , c rim in a l ac tio n s th a t w e re p e n d in g in L a w re n c e T o w n sh ip M u n icip a l C o u rt. In h is “ans w erand ver i fi ed cr os s - compl ai nt ” t o the St at e of N ew J er s ey ’ s ( the “St at e”) cr i m i nal c o m p lain t, T h o m a s in c lu d e d se v e ra l co u n ter c laim s a lleg in g th a t th e S tate a n d its e m p lo y e e s v io la te d h is ri g h ts u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 . T h e D istri ct C o u rten tered a m em o ran d u m an d o rde r gra n ti n g T h o m as’s a p p lica tio n f

o r le a v e to p ro c e e d in f

o rm a p a u p e ris, b u t, af

terc o n c lu d in g th a t § 1 4 4 3 d id notappl yt o T hom as ’ s cas e, r emanded i tt o the s t at e courtforl ack of s ubj ectm att er juri sd ict ion . S ee 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 4 4 7 (c) (“If a t anyti m e b ef o re f inal jud g m en t i t app ea rs th a t th e d istric t co u rt lac k s s u b jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n , the c a se sh a ll b e re m a n d e d .”). T h is appea l fol l ow ed. “A n or derr emandi ng a ca s e t o the St at e courtfr om w hi ch i tw as r emoved i s not re v ie w a b le o n a p p e a l” u n le s s th e c a s e w a s re m o v e d p u rs u a n t to § 1 4 4 3 . 2 8 U .S .C . § 1447( d) . T hus , t o t he ext entthatT hom as chal l enges the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s r emand or der w i th r es pectt o anybas es forr emoval otherthan § 1443, w e w i l l di s m i s s the appe al for l ack of j ur i s di ct i on. D avi s v. G l ant on, 107 F. 3d 1044, 1047 ( 3d C i r . 1997) . W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the r emand or dert o the ext entthatT hom as as s ert s thatr emoval w as p ro p e r u n d e r § 1 4 4 3 . Id . Sect i on 1443 author i zes the r emoval of a s t at e l aw act i on “[a ] gai ns tanyper s onI ti s notcl earw hetherthe St at e i s curr ent l ypr os ecut i ng T hom as on al l of the 1 c h a rg e s th a t h e re f

e re n c e s o r i f

s o m e o f th e p ro s e c u tio n s h a v e b e e n c o m p le te d . A ft erthe D i s tr i ctC our ti s s ued the r emand or der , T hom as fi l ed s ever al addi t i onal 2 m o ti o n s, inclu d ing o n e f o r l ea v e to a m en d the n o ti ce o f re m o v al. T h e D istri ct C o u rt d en ied th e m o ti o n s b ec au se itw as “ co m p let elyd ives ted o f ju ri sd ict ion o n ce itm ail [e d ] a 3 w ho i s deni ed orcannotenfor ce i n the court s of s uch St at e a r i ghtunderanyl aw p ro v id in g f

o r th e e q u a l civ il righ ts o f c iti z e n s o f

th e U n ited S tate s, o r o f a ll p e rso n s w ith in the ju ri sd ict ion there o f.” 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 4 4 3 (1). Fo r th is pro v isi o n to ap p ly , “a stat e c o u rt d e f e n d a n tm u s td e m o n s tr a t e b o th : ( 1 ) th a th e i s b e i n g d e p r i v e d o f r i g h t s g u a r a n t e e d b y a fede r al l aw ‘ pr ovi di ng for. . . equal ci vi l r i ght s ’ ; and ( 2) thathe i s ‘ deni ed orcannot enfor ce thatr i ghti n t he court s ’ of the s t at e. ” D avi s , 107 F. 3d at1047 ( quot i ng St at e of G eor gi a v. R ache l , 384 U . S. 780, 788 ( 1966) ) . U nderthe fi r s tr equi r ement , the def endant m u st a lleg e a d e p riv a tio n o f rig h ts g u a ra n tee d b ya f e d e ra l law “ p ro v id in g f o r sp e c if ic ci vi l r i ght s s t at ed i n t erm s of r aci al equal i ty . ” I d. ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons and quot at i ons o m itted). U n d er the sec o n d req u ir em en t, rem o v al i s av ail ab le w h ere the d ef en d an t’ s f e d e ra l civ il righ ts w o u ld “ in e v itab lyb e d e n ied b yth e v e rya c t o f b e in g b ro u g h t to trial in stat e c o u rt . ” Id . at 10 4 9 (i n terna l ci tat ion s an d q u o tat ion s o m itted). A s the D i stri ctC ou rtdeterm i ned , T ho m as has no tshow n that§ 1 44 3 p rovi des a b a s i s f o rr e mo v a l o f

th e S t a t e ’ s c r i mi n a l p r o s e c u t i o n . F u r th e r , Th o ma s ’ s c o u n t e r c l a i ms 1 agai ns tthe St at e al s o do notfal l underthe aus pi ces of § 1443 as he di d notas s ertthe St at e’ s al l eged de pr i vat i on of hi s r i ght s w as bas ed upon hi s r ace . M or eover , he di d not claim an inab il ityto en fo rce h is ci v il ri g h ts i n stat e c o u rt . A cc o rdin g ly , the D istri ct C o u rt 2cert i fi ed copyof the [r emand] or dert o the cl erk of the s t at e court . ” H untv. A cr om ed

C o rp ., 9 6 1 F .2 d 1 0 7 9 , 1 0 8 1 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 2 ). T o d e m o n stra te th a t h is c o u n ter c laim s f a ll u n d e r § 1 4 4 3 , T h o m a s n o w c ites to th e a m e n d e d n o tice o f re m o v a l, w h ich re f

e rs to h a te cr i m es thatthe St at e al l egedl ycarr i ed outand the St at e’ s al l eged “ pol i cyof r aci al di s cr i m i nat i on. ” B eca us e the D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed Thom as ’ s r eques tt o fi l e an a m ended n o t i c e o f r e mo v a l , a n d b e c a u s e th e a me n d e d n o t i c e o f r e mo v a l wa s th u s n e v e rf i l e d , we d o n o t c o n s id e r i t n o w . 4 corr ect l ydet erm i ned that§ 1443 di d notappl yt o T hom as ’ s not i ce of r emoval and a p p ro p ri a te ly re m a n d e d th e c a s e f o r l a c k o f

s u b je c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n . Forthes e r eas ons , w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or derent er ed on J anuary16, 2009. W e denyal l T hom as ’ s r emai ni ng m ot i ons and r eques t s forr el i ef, i ncl udi ng hi s m ot i on forr el eas e pendi ng r evi ew of a mot i on forw r i tof habe as corpus t hat h e h a s a p p a r e n t l yf

i l e d i n th e Di s tr i c tCo u r t , a n d h i s mo t i o n f o re x p e d i t e d r e v i e w.