2010 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 3-4-2010 

# 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 . 09-4608

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_2010

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 2010 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" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1789. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1789C L D - 1 2 5 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- 4608

___________ CONSP I RATORS v. CH ANDAN S . VOR A, 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 A ct i on N o. 09- cv- 275) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e G us t ave D i amond

____________________________________ S u b m itte d f

o r P o s s ib le D is m is s a l D u e to a J u ri s d ic tio n a l D e f e c t, P o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l P u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) orSum m aryA ct i on Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 27. 4 and I . O . P. 10. 6 February19, 2010 B efor e: B A R R Y , FI SH E R and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ar ch 4, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM I. 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 he2

W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a di s m i s s i ng her“pet i t i on forr emoval ” pur s uantt o 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B ). A s s h e h a s d o n e b e f o re , V o ra f

iled a “ p e tit io n f

o r re m o v a l” in th e D is tr ic t C o u rt s e e k in g f e d e ra l c o u rt o v e rs ig h t o f a n d p ro te c tio n f

ro m “ c o n s p ir a to rs ,” in c lu d in g C a m b ria C o u n typ o lice o f f ice rs a n d o th e r p u b lic o f f icia ls, w h o h a v e a lleg e d ly i s s ued fa l s e ci t at i ons agai ns ther . V or a cl ai m s thatr aci al and r el i gi ous bi gotrym ot i vat ed the cha r ges . T he D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded thatthe “pe t i t i on forr emoval ” s oughtt o att ack 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 lac k e d ju risd ictio n . V o ra a p p e a ls the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of herpet i t i on. I I . W e have j ur i s di ct i on overthi s appea l pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. T he D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s or derw as ent er ed on N ovember2, 2009. V or a fi l ed hernot i ce of appea l on D e c e mber3, 20 09 , on e da ybe y on d the thi r ty - da ype r i od pr e s c r i be d b yFe d. R. A pp . P. 4( a) ( 1) ( A ) . T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s fi nal or der , how ever , does notappea rt o s at i s fythe “s epar at e document ” rul e of Fede r al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 58; thus , the t i m e forfi l i ng an appe al di d notbegi n t o run w i th the i s s uance of thator der . See Fed. R . C i v. P. 58; s ee a l s o L e Bo o n v . L a n c a s t e rJ e wi s h Cm ty . Ctr . As s ’ n , 5 0 3 F . 3 d 2 1 7 , 2 2 3 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) . An or deri s cons i der ed a s epar at e documentonl yi f i t : ( 1) i s s el f- cont ai ned and s epar at e fr om the opi ni on; ( 2) not es the r el i ef gr ant ed; and ( 3) om i t s ( oratl eas ts ubs t ant i al l yom i t s ) t he court ’ s r eas ons fordi s pos i ng of the cl ai m s . See LeB oon, 503 F. 3d at224. T he D i s tr i ct C o u rt ’s o rd e r f

a ile d to s a tis f

yth e f ir s t a n d th ir d c ri te ri a .3

W hen a j udgm enti s r equi r ed t o be s etfor th on a s epar at e document , thatj udgm ent i s nottr eat ed as ent er ed unt i l i ti s s etfor th on a s epar at e documentorunt i l the expi r at i on of 150 day s aft eri t s entr yi n t he ci vi l docketunderFed. R . C i v. P. 79( a) , w hi cheve r occur s fi r s t . See Fed. R . A pp. P. 4( a) ( 7) ( A ) ( i i ) . A ccor di ngl y , entryof j udgm entand c o m m e n c e m e n t o f

th e th irty -d a yp e rio d f

o r f ili n g a n o tice o f

a p p e a l w ill n o t o c c u r in th is cas e unt i l A pr i l 1, 2010. See LeB oon, 503 F. 3d at223. A s s uch, V or a’ s not i ce of appea l i s t i m el yand w e have j ur i s di ct i on overthe appe al . I d. at225. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s s ua s pont e di s m i s s al . See A llah v . S e iv e rlin g , 2 2 9 F .3 d 2 2 0 , 2 2 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). B e c a u se w e h a v e g ra n ted V o ra in f o rm a p a u p e ris s tatu s p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 , w e re v iew th is a p p e a l f o r p o ss ib le d ism issal pu rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ). W e w il l dism iss an ap p ea l un d er § 1915( e) i f i tl acks an ar guabl e bas i s i n fac torl aw . N ei t zke v. W i l l i ams, 490 U . S. 319, 3 2 5 (1 9 8 9 ). A ft 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 m a tter o f

law th a t h e r p e tit io n w a s c o rre c tlyd ism iss e d . V o ra so u g h t re m o v a l, p re su m a b lyu n d e r th e c iv il righ ts re m o v a l sta tu te, 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 4 4 3 , alle g in g th a t ce rta in sta te c o u rt ju d g m e n ts a n d c itatio n s w e re th e re su lt o f a c o n sp ira c yb yc e rta in p u b lic offi ci al s t o vi ol at e herci vi l r i ght s . T he ci vi l r i ght s r emoval s t atut e appl i es onl yt o the r e mo v a l o f

s t a t e c o u r tp r o c e e d i n g s . I d . ; s e e a l s o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 4 4 7 ( a ) . E v e n i f we assu m e, arg u en d o , that the c ivil ri g h ts r em o v al st atute a p p li es to the m att ers tha t V o ra4

s eeks t o r emove, heruns uppor t ed al l egat i ons do notm eetthe s peci fi c cr i t er i a 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 st C ir. 1 9 6 8 ). H a v in g f o u n d n o leg a l m e rit to th is a p p e a l, w e w ill d is m is s it p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )( 2 )( B ).