Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
10-3-2008
Christ v. Vora
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-3541
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Christ v. Vora" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 416.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/416
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 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-3541
___________
SGT. B. CHRIST
v.
DR. CHANDAN S. VORA,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
D.C. Civil Action No. 07-cv-0177
(Honorable Gustave Diamond)
____________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
September 24, 2008
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN and COWEN, Circuit Judges
(Filed: October 3, 2008)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
PER CURIAM.
Dr. Chandan S. Vora appeals pro se the orders of the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania (i) dismissing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) her “petition for removal” of police citations/summonses and trial notices
for summary offenses and (ii) denying her motion to vacate. We have jurisdiction over
this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will affirm.
In July 2007, Dr. Chandan Vora filed a “petition for removal” seeking to remove a
police citation and related summons charging Vora with disorderly conduct, and trial
notices in a summary case involving three traffic citations and one citation for scattering
rubbish. She claimed that Sergeant B. Christ, of the City of Johnstown Police
Department, and other city officials discriminated against her on account of her religious
and ethnic background by issuing allegedly baseless and unconstitutional citations for
summary offenses and traffic violations. By order entered July 23, 2007, the District
Court dismissed the action. The District Court concluded that the removal petition sought
to attack state proceedings over which it had no jurisdiction and that the petition
otherwise failed to state a claim. Vora filed a “motion for injunction,” which the District
Court construed as a motion to vacate and denied. This timely appeal followed.
Upon thorough review of Vora’s District Court pleadings, notice of appeal, and
informal brief, we conclude that the District Court correctly dismissed her removal
petition for lack of jurisdiction and correctly denied her motion to vacate. As she has
done before, Vora petitioned for removal under the civil rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1443. This time, she alleges that Sergeant Christ trumped up charges against her. 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 citations, summons, and trial notices pertain to
2
summary proceedings before a district justice; they are not state court criminal
proceedings. Assuming arguendo that the civil rights removal statute applies to Vora’s
proceedings before a district justice, her 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 (1 st Cir. 1968).
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.
3