Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
8-17-2005
PA State Pol v. Vora
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-2869
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"PA State Pol v. Vora" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 686.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/686
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
APS-331 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-2869
________________
PA STATE POLICE
v.
CHANDAN S. VORA, DR.,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 05-cv-00208J)
District Judge: Honorable Gustave Diamond
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
August 4, 2005
Before: SLOVITER, FUENTES AND NYGAARD, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed August 17, 2005 )
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Chandan S. Vora appeals the orders of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania dismissing her notice of removal of a traffic citation
1
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and denying her motion for reconsideration of the
District Court’s dismissal.
In April 2005, Vora filed a notice of removal seeking to transfer a traffic citation
and summons charging Vora with making prohibited U-turn. Vora submitted a sizeable
volume of medical records in support of the notice of removal. She claimed that the
traffic citation was unconstitutional and requested that it be quashed.
In the April 12, 2005 order dismissing the removal, the District Court concluded
that the “Notice of Removal” sought to attack a state court traffic citation over which the
District Court had no jurisdiction. Vora immediately moved to vacate the dismissal of her
removal action, claiming that the traffic citation was unconstitutional and that she was the
object of a conspiracy to discriminate against her on account of her race. By order
entered May 3, 2005, the District Court treated the motion as a timely filed
reconsideration motion and denied it for the same reasons set forth in its April 2005 order.
This timely appeal followed.
Vora was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and the appeal is now before
the Court for determination pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Under §
1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss an appeal if it (i) is frivolous or malicious, (ii) fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (iii) seeks monetary damages from a
defendant with immunity. An action or appeal can be frivolous for either legal or factual
reasons. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
2
After reviewing Vora’s District Court pleadings and notice of appeal, we conclude
that the District Court correctly dismissed the “Notice of Removal” for lack of
jurisdiction and properly denied the reconsideration motion. Having found no legal merit
to this cause, we will dismiss the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).