Clearfield Borough Police Department v. Chandan S. Vora

DLD-303 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
NO. 07-1940
________________
CLEARFIELD BOROUGH POLICE DEPARTMENT
v.
CHANDAN S. VORA,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 07-cv-00012J)
District Judge: Honorable Gustave Diamond
____________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Possible Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
July 19, 2007
BEFORE: BARRY, AMBRO and FISHER, CIRCUIT JUDGES.
(Filed: August 1, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Chandan S. Vora appeals the order of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania dismissing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) her

-- 1 of 3 --

2
“notice of removal” of various warrants and criminal complaints lodged against her in
Johnstown and Clearfield, Pennsylvania.
In January 2007, Vora filed a “notice of removal” seeking to remove an old
Johnstown Police arrest warrant issued in 2003, a recent criminal complaint issued by the
Johnstown Pennsylvania Police Department (No. CR-768-06), and a notice of an active
arrest warrant (dated January 8, 2007) from the Clearfield Borough Police Department,
charging her with a traffic violation. The Clearfield Police charged Vora with operating a
vehicle without rear headlights. The Johnstown Police Complaint charges Vora with
violations of Pennsylvania law, namely, littering and securing loads (loose garbage) in her
vehicle. She claimed that the City of Johnstown Police Department, the Clearfield
Borough Police, and other city officials discriminated against her on account of her
religious and ethnic background by issuing baseless and unconstitutional criminal
citations.
The District Court dismissed the petition as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B), holding that the “Notice of Removal” sought to attack state court
proceedings over which the District Court had no jurisdiction. This timely appeal
followed.
Vora has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Because her
appeal lacks arguable merit, we will dismiss it pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). See Allah
v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
After reviewing Vora’s District Court pleadings and notice of appeal, we conclude
that her notice of removal was correctly denied. Vora petitioned for removal, presumably
under the civil rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1443, alleging that the arrest warrants
and criminal complaint are part of a larger conspiracy by all city personnel to violate her
civil rights. The civil rights removal statute applies only to the removal of state court
proceedings. Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1447(a). Even if we assume arguendo that the
civil rights removal statute applies to the warrants and criminal complaint that Vora seeks
to remove, her rambling, generalized, and unsupported allegations do not meet the
specific criterion for § 1443 removal. See City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808,
827 (1966); Ronan v. Stone, 396 F.2d 502, 503 (1st Cir. 1968). We have no independent
reason to believe that the Borough of Clearfield will not afford Vora any process she is
due.
Having found no legal merit to this cause, we will dismiss the appeal pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

-- 3 of 3 --