United States District Court, D. Delaware
THOMAS E. NOBLE, Plaintiff,
STATE OF DELAWARE, et al, Defendants.
HONORABLE LEONARD P. STARK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Thomas E. Noble ("Plaintiff), an inmate at the Howard R.
Young Correctional Institution in Wilmington, Delaware, filed
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff was
not incarcerated when he commenced this action. He appears
pro se and has paid the filing fee. On November 7,
2017, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss,
exercised its inherent power, and sua sponte
dismissed all other claims (and Defendants) as devoid of
merit. (D.I. 35) The Court also declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over any State claims.
(Id.) On November 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion
to remove and to transfer his State Criminal Case to this
Court pursuant to pendent jurisdiction. (D.I. 38) On November
20, 2017, the Clerk of Court received and docketed Plaintiffs
motion for reconsideration and for a stay. (D.I. 39)
Motion to Remove and Transfer.
seeks to remove and transfer a criminal case against him
pending in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware,
Criminal Case ID No. 1710002645. (D.I. 38) Plaintiff asserts
that he was illicitly reincarcerated on October 5, 2017,
after Defendants colluded to evade service in the instant
case. He also contends Defendants "illicitly and even
criminally" deprived him of a venue for impartial
judicial review at all levels of the State Courts.
though the Court dismissed the complaint in this matter and
declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, Plaintiff
seeks removal of his criminal case. In order for a case to be
removable to the district court, the court must have original
jurisdiction due either to a federal question or diversity of
citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332,
1441. "Only state-court actions that originally could
have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal
court by the defendant." Kline v. Security Guards,
Inc., 386 F.3d 246, 252 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392
(1987)). If the case could not have been filed originally in
federal court, then removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 is
improper and remand is appropriate. Id. (citations
Removal of state criminal matters is permitted in limited
instances under 28 U.S.C. § 1443. Pursuant to §
1443(1), a criminal prosecution commenced in a State court
may be removed to the district court of the United States for
the district and division embracing the place wherein it is
pending 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. 28 U.S.C.
1443(1). A state court defendant who seeks removal of a
criminal prosecution to federal court under 28 U.S.C. §
1443(1) "must demonstrate both (1) that he is being
deprived of rights guaranteed by a federal law 'providing
for . . . equal civil rights'; and (2) that he is
'denied or cannot enforce that right in the courts'
of the state." Davis v. Glanton, 107 F.3d 1044,
1047 (3d Cir. 1997) (quoting Georgia v. Rachel, 384
U.S. 780, 788 (1966)). With respect to die first prong,
"the phrase 'any law providing for . . . equal civil
rights' must be construed to mean any law providing for
specific civil rights stated in terms of racial
equality." Rachel, 384 at 792 (quoting 28
U.S.C. § 1443(1)). Second, it must appear, in accordance
with the provisions of § 1443(1), that the removal
petitioner is denied or cannot enforce the specified federal
rights in the courts of the State. See Johnson v.
Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 219 (1975) (citations
notice of removal does not satisfy these requirements.
Plaintiff does not allege mat the State court litigation
involves issues of racial equality. In addition, the issues
raised by Plaintiff are rights that are enforceable in state
court. It is generally presumed that "the protection of
federal constitutional or statutory rights [can] be effected
in the pending state proceedings, civil or criminal."
Johnson, 421 U.S. at 219-20. Removal of the State
criminal matter is not appropriate and, therefore, the Court
will deny the motion. (D.I. 38)
Motion for Reconsideration and for Stay of
November 20, 2017, the Court received Plaintiffs motion for
reconsideration and to stay order. (D.I. 39) The motion was
signed on November 16, 2017, and the Court considers it
timely filed. Plaintiff states that he was required to file
the motion without all of his documents. Nonetheless,
Plaintiff argues that the November 7, 2017 memorandum opinion
and order dismissing the action was "exceedingly
erroneous" and did not uphold his constitutional rights.
He claims that the undersigned Judge is biased, and that the
Court's ruling was not impartial, did not address all his
claims, and misapplied the laws.
purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to "correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence." Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann,
Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).
"A proper Rule 59(e) motion . . . must rely on one of
three grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law;
(2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to
correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest
injustice." Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666,
669 (3d Cir. 2010) (internal citation omitted).
Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration fails on the merits
because he has not set forth any intervening change in the
controlling law, new evidence, or clear errors of
law or fact made by the Court in its November 7, 2017
memorandum opinion and order. See Max's Seafood
Cafe, 176 F.3d at 677. The Court has once again
considered die filings of the parties and the evidence of
record. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any of the
aforementioned grounds to warrant reconsideration and,
therefore, the motion will be denied. (D.I. 39)
Court will deny the motion to remove and transfer the State
criminal case as well as the motion for reconsideration and
to stay. ...