United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division
AMBASSADOR AT LARGE POTENTATE ABIYAH HABIN YAH HOUSE OF AHAROWN SANCTUARY ex rel PAUL SMITH, Petitioner/Defendant,
THE COMMONWEATLH OF KENTUCKY 14TH AMENDMENT CITIZENSHIP BENEFIT PAUL SMITH, Respondent/Plaintiff.
J. HALE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
by counsel, Petitioner/Defendant, an inmate incarcerated at
Louisville Metro Department of Corrections and identifying
himself as “Ambassador at Large Potentate Abiyah Habin
Yah House of Aharown Sanctuary ex rel: Paul Smith”
(hereinafter, Petitioner), filed a notice of removal (DN 1)
of state-court criminal proceedings to federal court. In the
caption of the notice, he lists the following case numbers:
05-CR00364; 06-CR001816; 06-CR003726; 06-CR003935. Petitioner
does not identify in what state court these matters are
proceeding. For the reasons that follow, the Court will
dismiss the action and remand the matters to state court.
notice of removal, Petitioner asserts that he is the
“Ambassador at large, Potentate of the House of Aharown
Sanctuary, Messenger of Yahweh of Hosts: Abiyah Habin Yah (Ha
Binyah) of a Foreign Sovereign Ecclesiastical Mission and
Jurisdiction, doing the Great Work representing the Celestial
lodge by Divine Providence[.]” He states that he
“Petitions this Court for instant removal of above
Pending cases Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. 1455, Article III
Section 2 of the United States Constitution and Title 28
U.S.C. 1251 original jurisdiction.” He further states
According to Title 28 U.S.C. 1455(a) a defendant may remove
“any” (emphasis added) criminal
prosecution, this removal is warranted on the following
grounds, these grounds shall be followed by an addendum with
memorandum of law to further and support the establishment
and warrant of removal of said Prosecution by court cases
pending as noted above upon the grounds of Racial Equality,
Civil Rights, 14th Amendment Due process and
1st Amendment Religious beliefs, association and
worship. This Notice of removal is now filed with this Court
and removal is instant and automatic and until this cause is
adjudicated or remanded (Title 28 USC 1455(b)(3) the state
court cannot proceed with any Judgement and is without
Jurisdiction to enter any Judgement or conviction because
this cause is now removed.
by Petitioner.) While Petitioner makes references to
“an addendum with memorandum of law, ” no such
addendum is attached to the notice of removal. Nor does
Petitioner attach any records from any of the criminal
actions he seeks to remove.
support of removal, Petitioner cites 28 U.S.C. § 1455,
which provides a procedure for removal of a criminal
prosecution. While § 1455 governs the procedure
for removal, it does not authorize the substantive
right of removal. Rather, a state defendant may remove his
criminal prosecution only as provided in 28 U.S.C. §
1443. This section permits removal of a criminal action by a
(1) Against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the
courts of [a] State a right under any law providing for the
equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of
all persons within the jurisdiction thereof;
(2) For any act under color of authority derived from any law
providing for equal rights, or for refusing to do any act on
the ground that it would be inconsistent with such law.
U.S.C. § 1443.
respect to subsection (1), a removal petition must satisfy a
two-pronged test. See Johnson v.
Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213 (1975). “First, it must
appear that the right allegedly denied the removal petitioner
arises under a federal law ‘providing for specific
civil rights stated in terms of racial equality.'”
Id. at 219 (quoting Georgia v. Rachel, 384
U.S. 780, 792 (1966)).
Claims that prosecution and conviction will violate rights
under constitutional or statutory provisions of general
applicability or under statutes not protecting against racial
discrimination, will not suffice. That a removal petitioner
will be denied due process of law because the criminal law
under which he is being prosecuted is allegedly vague or that
the prosecution is assertedly a sham, corrupt, or without
evidentiary basis does not, standing alone, satisfy the
requirements of § 1443(1).
(citing City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808,
825 (1966)). Second, a petitioner must show that he cannot
enforce the specified federal right in state court.
Id. “This provision normally requires that the
denial be manifest in a formal expression of state law, such
as a state legislative or constitutional provision, rather
than a denial first made manifest in the ...