Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
8-1-2007
Janciga v. Vora
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-2483
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Janciga v. Vora" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 635.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/635
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 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
DLD-301 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
NO. 07-2483
________________
JOHNSTOWN POLICE COP JANCIGA
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-00079J)
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
“notice of removal” of criminal citations issued by the Johnstown Pennsylvania Police
Department.
In April 2007, Vora filed a “notice of removal” seeking to remove a City of
Johnstown traffic citation for not heeding traffic control signals (No. B3963272-5) and
two police complaints (Docket Nos. CR-0000132-07 & CR-0000157-07) charging her
with violations of Pennsylvania law, namely, theft, receiving stolen property, disorderly
conduct, scattering rubbish ( a repeat offense/misdemeanor) and various traffic/nuisance
citations. She claimed that the City of Johnstown Police Department, Officer Janciga,
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. Vora filed a motion to
vacate, which the District Court denied. 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).
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 traffic citation
and criminal complaints are part of a larger conspiracy by all city personnel to violate her
2
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). Here, Vora was ordered to appear in a
proceeding before a district justice on a mix of traffic and criminal violations. Even if we
assume arguendo that the civil rights removal statute applies to the traffic citation and two
criminal complaints that Vora seeks to remove, Vora’s 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 discern no abuse of discretion by the District Court in denying
Vora’s motion to vacate. We have no independent reason to believe that the City of
Johnstown 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