United States District Court, E.D. New York
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF, United States District Judge.
Jerrick, proceeding pro se, filed two notices of
removal and a petition seeking a writ of error coram
nobis between April 29, 2014 and June 4,
2014. In response to each of these filings, the
Court mailed Jerrick a notice of deficient filing, enclosing
the necessary forms and instructing him that his cases would
be dismissed if he failed to pay the filing fee or complete
an application for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP") within fourteen days.
(See No. 14-CV-2734 (Doc. Nos. 2, 5); No. 14-CV-2830
(Doc. Nos. 2, 7); No. 14-CV-3545 (Doc. Nos. 2, 5).) In
actions No. 14-CV-2734 and No. 14-CV-2830, the Court further
advised Jerrick that his filings were deficient for the
additional reason that he failed to include copies of the
accusatory documents filed against him in state court and
directed him to file those documents. (See No.
14-CV-2734 (Doc. Nos. 2. 5); No. 14-CV-2830 (Doc. Nos.
2, 7).) In all three actions, Jerrick proceeded to
file form IFP affidavits without responding to any of the
questions therein or providing any financial information.
(See No. 14-CV-2734 (Doc. No. 6): No. 14-CV-2830
(Doc. No. 8); No. 14-CV-3545 (Doc. No. 4).) Jerrick did not
file any of the requested accusatory documents.
Memorandum and Order dated August 25, 2014, the Court denied
Jerrick's three IFP applications without prejudice.
(See No. I4-CV-2734 (Doc. No. 7); No. 14-CV-2830
(Doc. No. 9); No. 14-CV-3545 (Doc. No. 6).) In addition, the
Court ordered Jerrick (1) to either pay the $400 filing fee
or file a completed IFP application in each of the three
actions; (2) to file a copy of the accusatory documents filed
against him in Criminal Court, Queens County in action No.
14-CV-2734; and (3) to file a copy of the accusatory
documents filed against him in Criminal Court, Kings County
in action No. 14-CV-2830. (See No. 14-CV-2734 (Doc.
No. 7); No. 14-CV-2830 (Doc. No. 9); No. 14-CV-3545 (Doc. No.
6).) The Court warned Jerrick that failure to comply with
these instructions would result in dismissal of the actions.
(See No. 14-CV-2734 (Doc. No. 7); No. 14-CV-2830
(Doc. No. 9); No. 14-CV-3545 (Doc. No. 6).) To date, Jerrick
has failed to comply with the Court's August 25, 2014
Memorandum and Order.
Jerrick's petition for writ of coram nobis in
No. 14-CV-3545 is hereby dismissed. The notices of removal in
No. 14-CV-2734 and No. 14-CV-2830 are dismissed and those
actions are hereby remanded to the Criminal Courts of Queens
and Kings County respectively.
Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that
any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith,
and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied
for purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United
States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
Clerk of the Court is directed to mark these cases closed and
to mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order to the plaintiff
at the address the docket lists for him, and to note the
mailing on the dockets.
 Jerrick's filings are as follows:
(1)No. 14-CV-2734 on April 29, 2014, seeking to remove
certain criminal actions from Criminal Court, Queens County;
(2) No. 14-CV-2830 on April 30, 2014, seeking to remove a
criminal action from Criminal Court, Kings County; and (3)
No. 14-CV-3545 on June 4, 2014, seeking a writ of error
coram nobis in reference to the Queens County
actions. Title 28, Section 1443 of the United States Code
provides for the removal of a criminal prosecution from state
court to federal court by a defendant who 'is denied or
cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under any
law providing for the equal rights of citizens of the United
States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction
thereof." A petitioner seeking to invoke § 1443
must satisfy a two-prong test. New York v. El, No.
12-CV-4091, 2012 WL 3861227, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2012).
First, the right allegedly denied must arise under a federal
law "'providing for specific civil rights stated in
terms of racial equality." Id. (quoting
Georgia v. Rachel,384 U.S. 780 (1966)). Second,
"it must appear on the face of the notice, that the
removal petitioner is denied or cannot enforce the specified
federal rights in the courts of (the) State."
Id. Jerrick has not identified, nor set forth any
facts clearly pointing to, any federal law providing for
specific civil rights stated in terms ...