Starke v. City of Dallas

• Decision Date: 18 April 2022
• Docket Number: 3:22-CV-0835-X-BH
• Parties: CHARLES B. STARKE, JR., Plaintiff, v. CITY OF DALLAS, STATE OF TEXAS, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

CHARLES B. STARKE, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF DALLAS, STATE OF TEXAS, et al., Defendants.

No. 3:22-CV-0835-X-BH

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

April 18, 2022

Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge ^[1]

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

Based on the relevant filings and applicable law, this removed criminal prosecution should be REMANDED to the state court sua sponte.

I. BACKGROUND

On April 13, 2022, Charles B. Starke, Jr. (Defendant) filed a two-page document entitled, “Title 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Removal Statute.” (See doc. 3.) The first page states:

Deprivation Due Process of Law in State Court

Deprivation Equal Protection of law in State Court

(Id. at 1.) The second page is a copy of an indictment filed against him on March 22, 2022, in Case No. F2071362 in Dallas County, Texas; it charges him with the offense of evading arrest and detention with a vehicle on or about the 11th day of June, 2020. (Id. at 2.) The case is pending in the 291st District Court. (See id. at 4.)

II. REMOVAL OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS

Although Defendant expressly relies on 28 U.S.C. § 1446, it is § 1443 that authorizes a removal of a pending state criminal prosecution to federal court in certain circumstances. It provides:

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 the 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

28 U.S.C. § 1443. The defendant bears the burden of establishing his right to removal under this statute. See Texas v. Gulf Water Benefaction Co., 679 F.2d 85, 86-87 (5th Cir. 1982). The notice of removal must be examined promptly, and “[i]f 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(4).^[2]

“Only a very small class of criminal cases are removable to federal court: (1) actions against federal law enforcement officers or officials for acts taken in performance of their official duties; (2) prosecutions of members of the armed forces; (3) prosecutions against officials for acts or refusals to act under civil rights statutes; and (4) suits ‘[a]gainst any 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.' ” Mnuk v. Texas, No. A-14-CA-1128-SS, 2015 WL 4395376, at *1 (W.D. Tex. July 16, 2015) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442, 1442a, 1443)....