Williams v. Missouri City Municipal Court et alCase remanded to the Municipal Court of Missouri City, Texas.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
FIELD-DEWAYNE
WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
v. 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-cv-3869
MISSOURI CITY MUNICIPAL
COURT, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court1 is pro se Plaintiff Field-Dewayne Williams’
(“Plaintiff”) Motion to Order State Court to Cease Actions After Removal (ECF
No. 4), Defendant Missouri City Municipal Court’s (“Municipal Court”) Motion
to Remand (ECF No. 9), Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended
Complaint (ECF No. 10), and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second
Amended Complaint (ECF No. 18). 	Based on a review of the motions,
arguments, and relevant law, the Court RECOMMENDS Municipal Court’s
Motion to Remand (ECF No. 9) be GRANTED. Should this Memorandum and
Recommendation 	be 	adopted 	by 	the 	District 	Court 	Judge, 	the 	Court
1 This case was referred to the Undersigned for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. (ECF No. 5).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
November 29, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-03869 Document 30 Filed 11/26/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 6

2
FURTHER RECOMMENDS all remaining pending motions (ECF Nos. 4, 10,
18) be DENIED AS MOOT.
On April 10, 2025, Plaintiff was charged with Failure to Identify under
Section 38.02 (b-1) of the Texas Penal Code and/or Section 521.025 of the Texas
Transportation Code in Missouri City Municipal Court in Cause No. 1944419.
(See ECF No. 9 at 2; ECF No. 9-1). On August 13, 2025, Plaintiff removed the
state criminal proceeding to federal court. 	(See ECF Nos. 1, 9-1). 	Plaintiff
alleges 	violations 	of 	the 	First, 	Fourth, 	Fifth, 	Sixth, 	Ninth, 	Tenth, 	and
Fourteenth Amendments. (ECF No. 1 at 1–2).
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1455 authorizes removal of a pending state criminal
prosecution to federal court in certain circumstances. 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
2 The procedural requirements for removing a state court criminal proceeding to
federal district court are found in 28 U.S.C. § 1455. It requires the removing party to file a
notice of removal “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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1455(a). 	The notice of removal of a criminal prosecution must
include “all grounds for such removal.” Id. § 1455(b)(2). “If it clearly appears on the face of
Case 4:25-cv-03869 Document 30 Filed 11/26/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 6

3
Only a small number 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. 14-cv-1128, 2015
WL 4395376, at *1 (W.D. Tex. July 16, 2015) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442, 1442a,
1443). Because there is no indication Defendant is a federal law enforcement
officer, a member of the armed forces, or an official enforcing a civil rights
statute, the question is whether Defendant is a “person who is denied or cannot
enforce” in Missouri City Municipal Court, “a right under any law providing
for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1).
To remove a case under § 1443(1), Defendant must show both that: “(1)
the right allegedly denied that defendant arises under a federal law providing
for specific rights stated in terms of racial equality; and (2) the removal
petitioner is denied or cannot enforce the specified federal rights in the state
the notice and any exhibits annexed thereto that removal should not be permitted, the court
shall make an order for summary remand.” 	Id. § 1455(b)(4). 	Here, the notice of removal
(ECF No. 1) does not comply with § 1455(a) because it does not include “a copy of all process,
pleadings and orders served upon such defendant or defendants in such action.”
Case 4:25-cv-03869 Document 30 Filed 11/26/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 6

4
courts due to some formal expression of state law.”3 	Oliver v. Lewis, 891 F.
Supp. 	2d 	839, 	844 	(S.D. 	Tex. 	2012) 	(citing 	State 	of 	Tex. 	v. 	Gulf 	Water
Benefaction Co., 679 F.2d 85, 86 (5th Cir. 1982)).
Defendant’s notice of removal fails as Defendant has not (1) asserted he
falls within a racial minority or (2) alleged the violation of any civil rights laws
related to racial equality. (See ECF Nos. 1, 10, 18, 29); see also U.S. Bank Nat’l
Ass’n v. Jefferson, 314 F. Supp. 3d 768, 778–79 (S.D. Tex. 2018) (noting that
notice of removal and exhibits did not mention the defendants’ race or assert
race-based discrimination in finding a failure to satisfy the first prong of
§ 1443(1)); Mnuk, 2015 WL 4395376, at *2 (“Mnuk’s notice of removal plainly
fails. 	Mnuk is not a racial minority, . . . and has not alleged the violation of
any civil rights laws related to racial equality. 	Accordingly, this Court lacks
jurisdiction over this case, and remand is appropriate.”). 	“Even conclusory
allegations 	of 	racial 	discrimination 	are 	insufficient 	to 	meet 	the 	first
requirement to remove a pending state criminal prosecution to federal court.”
Starke v. City of Dallas, No. 3:22-cv-0835, 2022 WL 4097989, at *2 (N.D. Tex.
3 Defendant states removal is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1)–(2). (ECF No. 1 at 2).
However, § 1443(2) gives a privilege of removal only to federal officers and agents. See City
of Greenwood, Miss. v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 824 (1966) (“For these reasons, we hold that
the second subsection of [§] 1443 confers a privilege of removal only upon federal officers or
agents and those authorized to act with or for them in affirmatively executing duties under
any federal law providing for equal civil rights.”). From Defendant’s notice of removal, it does
not appear that Defendant falls into this category.
Case 4:25-cv-03869 Document 30 Filed 11/26/25 in TXSD Page 4 of 6

5
Apr. 18, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:22-cv-0835, 2022
WL 4100831 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 6, 2022) (collecting cases); see also Texas v.
Martin, No. 3:24-cv-645, 2024 WL 1976596, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 3, 2024),
report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:24-cv-645, 2024 WL 1980721 (N.D.
Tex. May 2, 2024), aff'd sub nom. Martin v. 195th Jud. Dist. Ct. Crim. Dist. Ct.
No. 2, No. 24-10383, 2025 WL 737335 (5th Cir. Mar. 7, 2025) (“But the federal
rights that Martin claims were denied to him . . . arise under a generally
applicable constitutional provision which does not provide for ‘specific civil
rights 	stated 	in 	terms 	of 	racial 	equality.’”) 	(collecting 	cases). 	As 	such,
Defendant has not established his right to removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443.
See Texas v. Howard, No. 3:24-cv-178, 2024 WL 3246578, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June
25, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:24-cv-178, 2024 WL
3416522 (S.D. Tex. July 12, 2024).
Defendant also cites to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 in his notice of removal. 	(ECF
No. 1 at 1). However, 28 U.S.C. § 1441 only applies to “civil action[s] brought
in a State court.” 	28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 	Thus, because Municipal Court’s
prosecution of the citation concerns a criminal proceeding, not a civil matter,
28 U.S.C. § 1441 does not authorize removal. See City of Galveston v. Porretto,
No. 3:22-cv-256, 2022 WL 17488703, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 7, 2022).
Case 4:25-cv-03869 Document 30 Filed 11/26/25 in TXSD Page 5 of 6

6
Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS Municipal Court’s
Motion 	to 	Remand 	(ECF 	No. 	9) 	be 	GRANTED 	and 	this 	matter 	be
REMANDED to the Municipal Court of the City of Missouri City. Should this
Memorandum and Recommendation be adopted by the District Court Judge,
the Court FURTHER RECOMMENDS all remaining pending motions (ECF
Nos. 4, 10, 18) be DENIED AS MOOT.
The Clerk shall send copies of this Memorandum and Recommendation
to the respective parties who have fourteen days from the receipt thereof to file
written objections thereto pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)
and General Order 2002-13. Failure to file written objections within the time
period mentioned shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking the factual
findings and legal conclusions on appeal.
SIGNED in Houston, Texas on November 26, 2025.
______________________________
Richard W. Bennett
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-03869 Document 30 Filed 11/26/25 in TXSD Page 6 of 6