Case Name: CITY OF CHESTER v. William ANDERSON et al., Appellants; COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, v. William ANDERSON et al., Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1965-05-10
Citations: 347 F.2d 823
Docket Number: Nos. 15014, 15015
Parties: CITY OF CHESTER v. William ANDERSON et al., Appellants. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, v. William ANDERSON et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 347
Pages: 823–825

Head Matter:
CITY OF CHESTER v. William ANDERSON et al., Appellants. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, v. William ANDERSON et al., Appellants.
Nos. 15014, 15015.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued April 23, 1965.
Decided May 10, 1965.
Rehearing Denied July 13, 1965.
Biggs, Chief Judge, and Kalodner and Freedman, Circuit Judges, dissented on rehearing.
Anthony G. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, (Caleb Foote, Philadelphia, Pa., on the briefs), for appellants.
Philip A. McMunigal, Jr., City Sol., City of Chester, Chester, Pa. (Lawrence H. Jacobson, Asst. City Sol., City of Chester, on the briefs), for appellee City of Chester.
Vram Nedurian, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Media, Pa. (Jacques H. Fox, Dist. Atty., Domenic D. Jerome, First Asst. Dist. Atty., Paul R. Sand, Asst. Dist. Atty., Media, Pa., on the briefs), for appellee Commonwealth of Pa.
Before McLAUGHLIN, STALEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
These cases concern petitions for removal based on alleged violations of civil rights under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) and (2). In this court appellants abandoned their theory that "by reason of public hostility, precipitous trial and other circumstances attending the state prosecutions, defendants could not obtain a fair trial in the state courts."
Appellants' claim under § 1443(2) is without foundation on its face. As stated in People of State of New York v. Galamison, 342 F.2d 255, 264 (2 Cir. 1965), cert. den., 85 S.Ct. 1342, April 26, 1965.
"A private person claiming the benefit of §1443(2) *' must point to some law that directs or encourages him to act in a certain manner, not merely to a generalized constitutional provision that will give him a defense or to an equally general statute that may impose civil or criminal liability on persons interfering with him."
Admittedly appellants cannot come within § 1443(1) unless they have been denied or cannot enforce their alleged "federally protected equal civil rights in the state courts No showing has been made by appellants to that effect. Galamison, supra, pp. 266, 267; Rachel v. State of Georgia, 342 F. 2d 336, 340 (5 Cir.1965).
The order of remand will be affirmed.
. Ҥ 1443. Civil rights cases
"Any of the following civil actions or criminal prosecutions, commenced in a State court may be removed by the defendant to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:
"(1) Against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction thereof;
"(2) For any act under color of authority derived from any law providing for equal rights, or for refusing to do any act on the ground that it would be inconsistent with such law."