United States District Court, D. New Jersey
McNULTY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Jordan is the defendant in a municipal court case in
Englewood, New Jersey. Complaint-Warrant # 0215 W 2018 00257.
She is charged with defiant trespass, in that she refused to
vacate premises upon service with a warrant of removal,
N.J.S.A § 2C:18-3A; obstruction of a governmental
function, in that she refused to provide access to the
premises and then refused to provide identification, N.J.S.A.
§ 2C:29-1A; and refusal to submit to identification
procedures, i.e., fingerprinting, at the time of arrest,
N.J.S.A. § 53:1-15. (DE 1 at 15-16).
24, 2018, she filed a notice of removal of her municipal
court criminal case to federal court under a little-used
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....
28 U.S.C. § 1443(1).
contrast with the more familiar notice of removal in a civil
case, which is self-executing, a § 1443 notice of
removal does not automatically deprive the state court of
jurisdiction and lodge it in the federal court. Indeed,
"[t]he filing of a notice of removal of a criminal
prosecution shall not prevent the State court in which such
prosecution is pending from proceeding further, except that a
judgment of conviction shall not be entered unless the
prosecution is first remanded." 28 U.S.C. §
Notice was filed using the caption of the state criminal
case, but the clerk has properly docketed the matter under a
civil number, because it is in substance a petition for
removal. Only if the petition is granted will this matter be
filed in federal court as a criminal case. Accordingly, in an
earlier order, I realigned the parties, deeming Ms. Jordan to
be the petitioner and the State to be the respondent. (DE 4)
The State has filed a response in the form of a motion to
dismiss the notice of removal. (DE 22). Ms. Jordan has filed
a response in the form of a "Motion to Strike" (DE
Jordan's Notice of Removal is lengthy, but its major
contentions may be summarized as follows.
Gallina of the municipal court caused her signature to be
forged. The municipal court has no diversity compliance and
has harassed Ms. Jordan's brother-in-law, Mr. Rosenberg,
on a racial basis.
officers forcibly entered Ms. Jordan's residence to
effect an eviction without legal basis in that there was no
such order. A Jewish co-resident was not arrested. The
officers, including Jordan Migliore, have a public reputation
of bigotry against African Americans. They racially harassed
Ms. Jordan over her association with Rosenberg. The state
proceedings are part of a racist conspiracy against Rudolph
Rosenberg and family members.
Jordan was purposely held at Bergen County Jail for a
prolonged period. Ms. Jordan is racially African-American,
has a ...