Behlmann v. Audrain County, Missouri

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
NORTHERN DIVISION
JEREMY BEHLMANN, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 2:25-cv-00081-HEA
)
AUDRAIN COUNTY, MISSOURI, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF REMAND
Self-represented Plaintiff Jeremy Behlmann filed this removal of three
criminal actions from the Audrain County Circuit Court. 	Because there is no
statutory basis for Plaintiff to remove these state prosecutions to federal court, this
matter will be summarily remanded.
In Plaintiff’s two-page notice of removal, he states that in 2020 he was
charged 	with 	speeding 	and 	CBD 	possession 	by 	the 	Mexico 	Public 	Safety
Department in Mexico, Missouri. 	Doc. [1] at 2; State v. Behlmann, No. 20AU-
CR00622 (12th Jud. Cir. Ct. 2020). He states that he now faces three state court
cases, and the state court judge ordered him to sit for a mental examination. 	See
State v. Behlmann, No. 20AU-CR006543 (12th Jud. Cir. Ct. 2020); 	State v.
Behlmann, No. 20AU-CR00981 (12th Jud. Cir. Ct. 2020). 	According to Plaintiff,
he was found to be incompetent after a mental examination conducted via video
Case: 2:25-cv-00081-HEA Doc. #: 2 Filed: 11/19/25 Page: 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

-2-
conference. Plaintiff questions the legality of this mental examination. The results
of the examination were filed in the three cases on November 17, 2025.
Plaintiff attempts to remove these state charges to federal court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1455, which governs the removal of state criminal actions to federal district
courts:
(a) 	Notice of removal.—A defendant or defendants desiring to
remove any criminal prosecution from a State court shall file in the
district court of the United States for the district and division within
which such prosecution is pending a notice of removal signed pursuant
to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and containing a
short and plain statement of the grounds for removal, together with a
copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon such defendant
or defendants in such action.
(b) 	Requirements.—(1) 	A 	notice 	of 	removal 	of 	a 	criminal
prosecution shall be filed not later than 30 days after the arraignment in
the State court, or at any time before trial, whichever is earlier, except
that for good cause shown the United States district court may enter an
order granting the defendant or defendants leave to file the notice at a
later time.
28 U.S.C. § 1455.
Section 1455 does not, itself, provide a substantive basis for removal
jurisdiction, but merely sets forth the procedural requirements for removing a
criminal case from state court. Plaintiff has not met the requirements of subsections
(a). He has not submitted a copy of the state court file. Nor has he met the 30-day
statutory deadline or suggested any “good cause” for why his notice of removal was
filed five years late.
Case: 2:25-cv-00081-HEA Doc. #: 2 Filed: 11/19/25 Page: 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

-3-
Additionally, Title 28 U.S.C. § 1443 states, in relevant part:
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.
To demonstrate that removal is proper under § 1443(1), the removing party
must show (1) “that the right allegedly denied the removal petitioner arises under a
federal law providing for specific civil rights stated in terms of racial equality” and
(2) “that the removal petitioner is denied or cannot enforce the specified federal
rights in the courts of the State.” Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 219 (1975)
(quotations omitted). 	“Claims that prosecution and conviction will violate rights
under constitutional or statutory provisions of general applicability or under statutes
not protecting against racial discrimination, will not suffice” for removal under
§ 1443(1). Id.
Plaintiff satisfies neither prong of this test. His notice of removal makes no
mention of race or any laws stated in terms of racial equality. With respect to the
second prong, there are no allegations offered by Plaintiff from which the Court
could conclude that the state court cannot vindicate his federal constitutional rights.
Case: 2:25-cv-00081-HEA Doc. #: 2 Filed: 11/19/25 Page: 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

-4-
Plaintiff merely asserts that he is being held on three cases from the Audrain County
Circuit Court and a doctor declared him incompetent after a mental examination
conducted via video conference.
“If 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). For these reasons, the Court summarily remands
this matter to Audrain County Circuit Court.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is REMANDED to the Audrain
County Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall forward a certified copy
of this Order to the Audrain County Court, with reference to State v. Behlmann, Nos.
20AU-CR00622, 20AU-CR00643, and 20AU-CR00981.
Dated this 19 th day of November, 2025.
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 2:25-cv-00081-HEA Doc. #: 2 Filed: 11/19/25 Page: 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>