Source: http://co.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20150325_0000653.DCO.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-12-10 14:39:08
Document Index: 242588157

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

| United States District Court v. Anwar
United States District Court v. Anwar
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, STATE OF COLORADO, and MOHAMAD ABDALLAH, Plaintiffs,v.AZFAR JADOON ANWAR, Defendant.
Defendant Azfar Jadoon Anwar has filed pro se a Notice of Removal in which he states that the grounds for removal are based on Federal question; but the Notice for the most part is convoluted and difficult to decipher. Defendant does not indicate in the Notice the number of the case he desires to remove to this Court. He does, however, indicate that he has attached copies of all "Process, Pleadings, and Orders served upon Pro Per Defendant, " ECF No. 1 at 6, but no attachments are provided. The Court, therefore, construes this action as a criminal removal of Case No. 2014M3765 from the Adams County District Court.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1455(a) provides that a defendant seeking to remove a criminal prosecution from a state court must file a notice of removal "containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal." Mr. Anwar fails to provide a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal of this action and he fails to demonstrate that any criminal prosecution currently is pending against him that may be removed. Even construing the notice of removal liberally and assuming the existence of an active criminal prosecution in the removed case, the Court is unable to ascertain any legitimate basis for removal of the case under the relevant statutes. Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442, 1442a, and 1443 all authorize the removal of certain criminal prosecutions, but Defendant makes no allegations relevant to § 1442, which applies to actions against federal officers or agencies, or to § 1442a, which applies to members of the armed forces. The Court also finds there is no basis for removal pursuant to § 1443, which authorizes removal of certain civil rights cases.
The two requirements for removal under § 1443(1) are narrow and well-defined. See Davis v. Glanton, 107 F.3d 1044, 1045 (3d Cir. 1997). "First, it must appear that the right allegedly denied the removal petitioner arises under a federal law providing for specific civil rights stated in terms of racial equality.'" Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 219 (1975) (quoting Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 792 (1966)). "A state court defendant's claim that prosecution and conviction will violate rights under constitutional or statutory provisions of general applicability or under statutes not protecting against racial discrimination' is insufficient for removal." Colorado v. Lopez, 919 F.2d 131, 132 (10th Cir. 1990) (quoting Johnson, 421 U.S. at 219). Mr. Anwar does not allege facts that demonstrate he has been denied any rights based on his race.
Therefore, because it clearly appears on the face of the Notice of Removal that removal of this action should not be permitted, the action will be remanded summarily to the state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(4).
This is Mr. Anwar's second notice of removal of State of Colorado Case No. 2014M3765. Both notices are convoluted and fail to properly state a basis for removal of Case No. 2014M3765 to this Court. Mr. Anwar's filings border on abuse of the federal judicial system. Mr. Anwar is warned that if he continues to file improper notices of removal that address Case No. 2014M3765 the Court will consider filing restrictions. Accordingly, it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed on Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed. R. App. P. 24 in a Criminal Case, ECF No. 3, is denied as moot.