Court Opinion

ID: 9866832
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 14:00:43.363743+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:46.006666
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12558    Document: 78-1     Date Filed: 09/26/2023   Page: 1 of 5

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-12558
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       DAN BELC,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 5:22-cr-00008-MW-MJF-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12558         Document: 78-1         Date Filed: 09/26/2023          Page: 2 of 5

       2                          Opinion of the Court                        22-12558

       Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Dan Belc, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
       order remanding his state court prosecution. The government
       responds by moving for summary affirmance, arguing that the
       district court correctly found that Belc’s notice of removal was
       untimely and without merit under any removal statute. Belc then
       filed several motions to strike the government’s motion for
       summary affirmance and its responses to his motions as untimely
       and for an invalid certificate of interested persons. We grant the
       government’s motion for summary affirmance and deny Belc’s
       motions to strike. 1
                                               I.
              We review de novo whether the district court had subject
       matter jurisdiction after removal. Castleberry v. Goldome Credit
       Corp., 408 F.3d 773, 780–81 (11th Cir. 2005). Ordinarily, we lack
       jurisdiction to review an order remanding a case to state court, but
       when a case is removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442 or 1443, we
       may review the remand order. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). Section 1443
       permits a defendant in a criminal state court action to remove the

       1 Belc also requests a writ of mandamus in his appellant brief, though he did

       not file an original petition in this appeal. In an earlier proceeding, we already
       denied his mandamus petition on the requested grounds. See In re: Dan Belc,
       No. 22-12639 (11th Cir. Nov. 1, 2022). To the extent Belc attempts to renew
       his mandamus request here, we deny.
USCA11 Case: 22-12558         Document: 78-1        Date Filed: 09/26/2023         Page: 3 of 5

       22-12558                  Opinion of the Court                                3

       action to federal court if it is against a person who is denied or
       cannot enforce in the state courts “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.” Id. § 1443(1).
              We construe pro se pleadings liberally. Campbell v. Air
       Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168 (11th Cir. 2014). But “this leniency
       does not give a court license to serve as de facto counsel for a party,
       or to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an
       action.” Id. at 1168–69 (quotation omitted).
                                             II.
              Summary disposition is appropriate where “the position of
       one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can
       be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case, or where,
       as is more frequently the case, the appeal is frivolous.” Groendyke
       Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). 2 Summary
       affirmance is warranted here, for two reasons.
               First, Belc’s notice of removal was not timely. A notice of
       removal must be filed no later than thirty days after the
       arraignment in state court, or at any time before trial, whichever is
       earlier. 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(1). If a defendant shows good cause, a
       district court may enter an order granting a defendant leave to file
       a notice of removal later. Id. Belc filed his notice of removal over

       2 Decisions by the former Fifth Circuit handed down before October 1, 1981

       are binding on this Court. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th
       Cir. 1981) (en banc).
USCA11 Case: 22-12558       Document: 78-1      Date Filed: 09/26/2023      Page: 4 of 5

       4                       Opinion of the Court                   22-12558

       three years after his arraignment, well outside the thirty-day limit.
       And he does not argue that he had good cause for this delay.
               Second, even if we could excuse Belc’s untimely notice of
       removal, he is not entitled to removal on the merits. To properly
       remove a case under § 1443(1), a petitioner must satisfy a
       two-prong test: he must show (1) that removal was based on a
       federal law “providing for specific civil rights stated in terms of
       racial equality,” and (2) that “he has been denied or cannot enforce
       that right in the state courts.” Alabama v. Conley, 245 F.3d 1292,
       1295 (11th Cir. 2001) (quotation omitted).
               As to the first prong, the “phrase any law providing for equal
       civil rights refers to laws providing for specific civil rights stated in
       terms of racial equality, and does not include rights of general
       application available to all persons or citizens.” Id. (alteration
       adopted and quotation omitted). A defendant’s “right to a fair trial
       and equal protection of the laws and his rights under 42 U.S.C.
       § 1983 do not arise from legislation providing for specific civil rights
       in terms of racial equality.” Id. (alteration adopted and quotation
       omitted).
              For the second prong, the petitioner must show that he has
       been denied or cannot enforce that right in the state courts. Id.
       This must generally be “manifest in a formal expression of state
       law.” Id. at 1296 (quotation omitted). Charges “that the defendant
       is unable to obtain a fair trial in a particular state court are
       insufficient to support removal under § 1443(1).” Id. at 1298–99
       (quotation omitted).
USCA11 Case: 22-12558       Document: 78-1      Date Filed: 09/26/2023      Page: 5 of 5

       22-12558                Opinion of the Court                           5

               Belc’s allegations of racial and national origin discrimination
       and violations of his constitutional rights are not based on a federal
       law “providing for specific civil rights stated in terms of racial
       equality.” Id. at 1295 (quotation omitted). Nor has Belc asserted
       that a state law prevents a state court from enforcing his rights. See
       id. His attempt to remove thus fails on the merits.
                                         III.
               Belc also moved to strike the government’s motion for
       summary affirmance and its responses to his motions on the
       grounds that they were untimely and included a defective
       certificate of interested persons. We deny these motions. The
       government’s motion was timely because it was filed within thirty
       days of Belc’s brief. See Fed. R. App. P. 31(a)(1); 11th Cir. R. 31-1(c).
       Each subsequent response was also timely, having been filed
       within ten days of Belc’s respective motion to strike. See Fed. R.
       App. P. 27(a)(3)(A). And the government’s certificate of interested
       persons was accurate.
                                   *      *       *
              Because the government’s position is clearly correct as a
       matter of law, summary affirmance is appropriate. We GRANT
       the government’s motion for summary affirmance and DENY
       Belc’s motions to strike.
              AFFIRMED.