Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-12-2007
Janciga v. Vora
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-4987
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Janciga v. Vora" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 953.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/953
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DLD-246 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
No. 06-4987
________________
JEFFREY W. JANCIGA, of the
Johnstown 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. 06-cv-00232J)
District Judge: Honorable Gustave Diamond
________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
May 24, 2007
BEFORE: BARRY, AMBRO and FISHER, Circuit Judges
(Filed: June 12, 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 October 2006, Vora filed a “notice of removal” seeking to remove a City of
Johnstown police complaint charging her with violations of Pennsylvania law, namely,
disorderly conduct, obstructing highways, scattering rubbish, and various traffic/nuisance
citations. She claimed that the City of Johnstown Police Department 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 concluded 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).
After reviewing Vora’s District Court pleadings and notice of appeal, we conclude
that her petition was correctly denied. Vora petitioned for removal, presumably under the
civil rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1443, alleging that the code violation citation was
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). Here, the citation is a proceeding before a district justice on a
municipal code violation; it is not a state court criminal proceeding. Even if we assume
2
arguendo that the civil rights removal statute applies to municipal code violaiton
proceedings, Vora’s 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 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