Source: https://casetext.com/case/southcarolina-v-tucker
Timestamp: 2020-04-09 07:17:07
Document Index: 718053915

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1915', '§ 636', '§ 1442', '§ 56', '§ 1443', '§ 1455', '§ 1455', '§ 1455', '§ 1443']

State v. Tucker, C/A No. 3:17-1811-JFA-PJG | Casetext Search + Citator
Consequently, it is insufficient for Mr. Lyons to establish subject matter jurisdiction over this matter by…
Full title:State of South Carolina, Plaintiff, v. Ariel Feyetta Tucker, Defendant.
C/A No. 3:17-1811-JFA-PJG (D.S.C. Aug. 11, 2017)
C/A No. 3:17-1811-JFA-PJG
State of South Carolina, Plaintiff, v. Ariel Feyetta Tucker, Defendant.
Ariel Feyetta Tucker, proceeding pro se, filed this Amended Notice of Removal from the City of Columbia Municipal Court purporting to remove matters 20170610113832 and 20170610113833 in which she is the defendant. (ECF No. 2.) The Amended Notice of Removal has been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). Having reviewed the Amended Notice of Removal and accompanying documents in accordance with applicable law, the court concludes this matter should be remanded.
Tucker indicates she has outstanding traffic tickets from the City of Columbia for failure to possess a vehicle registration card and failure to maintain proof of insurance. The traffic violations occurred on May 25, 2017, and the tickets indicate her trial date was on June 8, 2017. She seeks to remove the state action to this court, arguing it presents federal questions.
The court notes the Amended Notice of Removal purports to raise various legal issues but the court is unable to comprehend the legal arguments presented therein.
To the extent Tucker seeks to remove these municipal traffic court matters, the court notes criminal defendants may only remove state criminal prosecutions to federal court in rare circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442 (criminal prosecutions against federal agencies and officers), 1442(a) (criminal prosecution against members of the armed services), & 1443 (denial of racial equality in state criminal prosecutions). Federal law requires:
Failure to maintain proof of insurance is a misdemeanor in South Carolina. S.C. Code Ann. § 56-10-225. --------
Tucker does not contend that her attempted removal of her state municipal court prosecution falls under any of the permissible circumstances enumerated by law. Rather, Tucker asserts the court has jurisdiction over this matter because it involves a federal question, which is not sufficient to meet the requirements for removal. See generally Johnson v. Mississippi, 412, U.S. 213, 219 (1975) ("Claims that prosecution and conviction will violate rights under constitutional or statutory provisions of general applicability or under statutes not protecting against racial discrimination, will not suffice [for removal under § 1443]."); State v. Ivory, 906 F.2d 999, 1002 (4th Cir. 1990) ("The regulation of crime is pre-eminently a matter for the States, and there is a strong judicial policy against federal interference with state criminal proceedings.") (citing Meas v. California, 489 U.S. 121 (1989)) (quotations omitted).
Also, Tucker failed to file the necessary state court documents required by § 1455(a) and she also failed to demonstrate the matter was timely removed pursuant to § 1455(b)(1). Bowen v. State, 194 F.3d 1303 (4th Cir. 1999) (Table) (finding district court did not err in failing to remand attempted removal of state prosecution where the removal was untimely). Because Tucker fails to establish that the court has jurisdiction over this matter, the court finds the matter should be dismissed and remanded to the City of Columbia Municipal Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(4) ("The United States district court in which such notice is filed shall examine the notice promptly. If it clearly appears on the face of the notice and any exhibits annexed thereto that removal should not be permitted, the court shall make an order for summary remand."); see also North Carolina v. Dupree, 521 F. App'x 181 (4th Cir. 2013) (Table) (finding district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over removal of state criminal prosecution because defendant did not make the requisite showing for removal under § 1443, and thus, remand to state court was appropriate); Commonwealth of Va. v. El, Civil Action No. 3:16cv128, 2016 WL 4507814, at *3 (E.D. Va. Aug. 26, 2016) (collecting cases).
Accordingly, the court recommends this matter be remanded to the City of Columbia Municipal Court. August 11, 2017