MORIN v. STATE OF FLORIDA

Page 1 of 9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
DOUGLAS A. MORIN,
Inmate # 263727,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No. 4:26cv18-MW-MAF
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Defendant.
_________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Douglas A. Morin filed a notice of removal on January 13, 2026, ECF
No. 1, seeking to remove two criminal cases 1 to this Court from state court.
Mr. Morin did not pay the filing fee for this case or file an in forma pauperis
motion at the time of case initiation. 	See ECF No. 7. It took until March 3,
2026, for him to file an in forma pauperis motion. ECF No. 14. That motion
has been granted in a separate Order entered this day.
Mr. Morin’s case initiating documents have now been reviewed. 	He
contends that for “over the past 5 years, [he] has been unable to secure or
1 Mr. Morin seeks to remove case number 2020-CF-1348 and 2021-CF-0021 from
state court to this Court. ECF No. 1 at 1.
Case 4:26-cv-00018-MW-MAF Document 18 Filed 03/13/26 Page 1 of 9

Page 2 of 9
enforce any rights guaranteed to him under the Constitution, Laws, and
Treaties of the United States in any State Court in Florida.” ECF No. 1 at
1. He also points out that “this is Morin’[s] second attempt to remove these
case[s], and that the grounds (the greater constitutional injury) did not exist
when he filed his original notice [in] case no. 4:22-cv-242-AW-MAF.” 	Id.
First, the notice of removal indicates Mr. Morin seeks to remove state
criminal prosecutions to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). That
statute permits a criminal prosecution which is commenced in state court to
“be removed by the defendant to the district court of the United States for
the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending.” 28
U.S.C. § 1443. Initially, it must be noted that Mr. Morin’s notice of removal
is deficient because he did not clearly assert where the state court
prosecution was pending. Even so, the Court takes judicial notice that
Mr. Morin’s notice of removal refers to Judge Lance Eric Neff. ECF No. 1
at 2. Judge Neff 2 was appointed to the Second Judicial Circuit in 2023 and,
thus, it appears that if removal is proper, then it is proper to remove the
cases to the Tallahassee Division of the Northern District of Florida.
2 Judicial notice is also taken that Governor Ron DeSantis appointed Judge Neff to
serve as a judge on the Florida First District Court of Appeal on March 2, 2026.
Case No. 4:26cv18-MW-MAF
Case 4:26-cv-00018-MW-MAF Document 18 Filed 03/13/26 Page 2 of 9

Page 3 of 9
Second, the removal notice is also deficient because Mr. Morin did
not comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1455(a). That statute requires a defendant
desiring to remove a case from state court to federal court to file “a copy of
all process, pleadings, and orders served upon such defendant . . . in such
action.” Mr. Morin did not file any documents from either of the state court
cases. His reason for not doing so is that unidentified persons “removed all
of his legal materials and papers” and “made it difficult, if not, impossible to
make copies.” ECF No. 1 at 2. Those unsupported and vague assertions
are not well taken.
Third, 28 U.S.C. § 1455 governs the procedure for removal of
criminal prosecutions. That statute requires a “notice of removal of a
criminal prosecution [to] be filed not later than 30 days after the
arraignment in the State court, or at any time before trial, whichever is
earlier, except that for good cause shown the United States district court
may enter an order granting the defendant . . . leave to file the notice at a
later time.” 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(1). Mr. Morin has not shown good cause
for the delay in filing the notice of removal, nor has he even attempted to
do so. Mr. Morin was made aware of that requirement when he sought
Case No. 4:26cv18-MW-MAF
Case 4:26-cv-00018-MW-MAF Document 18 Filed 03/13/26 Page 3 of 9

Page 4 of 9
removal in his prior case. 	See ECF No. 18 of case number 4:22cv242-AW-
MAF.
Notably, Mr. Morin’s prior case sought to remove case number
2020-CF-1348 and 2021-CF-0021 from state court to this Court. 	See ECF
No. 18 at 4 of case number 4:22cv242. Those are the same two cases he
once again seeks to remove now. The Report and Recommendation
entered in that prior case took judicial notice of the state court records and
found that in case number 2020-CF-001348, Mr. Morin waived
arraignment 3 on June 4, 2020. ECF No. 18 at 4-5. In case number 2021-
CF-0021, Mr. Morin waived arraignment on September 17, 2021. Thus, it
has been established from Mr. Morin’s prior case in this Court (case #
4:22cv242-AW-MAF) that removal of his criminal cases 2020-CF-1348 and
2021-CF-0021 were not timely in 2022. Removal is certainly not timely
now. Moreover, Mr. Morin has not shown good cause as required by 28
U.S.C. § 1455(b)(1) to file the notice of removal “later than 30 days after
the arraignment in the State court . . . .” This case should be remanded to
state court for those reasons alone, but there is still another reason.
3 It is well established that Rule 3.160(a) permits counsel to “file a written plea of not
guilty at or before arraignment and thereupon arraignment shall be deemed waived.”
Albritton v. White, 948 So. 2d 852, 853 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).
Case No. 4:26cv18-MW-MAF
Case 4:26-cv-00018-MW-MAF Document 18 Filed 03/13/26 Page 4 of 9

Page 5 of 9
The removal statute permits the removal of “civil actions or criminal
prosecutions, commenced in a State court . . . (1) Against any person who
is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). The
United States Supreme Court has interpreted the statute as permitting the
removal of a state prosecution to federal court only if two requirements are
met. Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 788, 86 S. Ct. 1783, 1788, 16 L.
Ed. 2d 925 (1966). “First, the petitioner must show that the right upon
which the petitioner relies arises under a federal law ‘providing for specific
civil rights stated in terms of racial equality.’” Alabama v. Conley, 245 F.3d
1292, 1295 (11th Cir. 2001) (citing to Rachel, 384 U.S. at 792, 86 S. Ct. at
1790). “Second, the petitioner must show that he has been denied or
cannot enforce that right in the state courts.” Conley, 245 F.3d at 1295
(citing to Rachel, 384 U.S. at 794, 86 S. Ct. 1783).
Mr. Morin asserts that removal is warranted because “state court
actors do not recognize Article 1 & 2 of the U.S. Constitution and do not
see themselves bound by the Supreme Law of the Land, and have now
suspended the writ of habeas corpus in violation thereof.” ECF No. 1 at 1.
Case No. 4:26cv18-MW-MAF
Case 4:26-cv-00018-MW-MAF Document 18 Filed 03/13/26 Page 5 of 9

Page 6 of 9
He contends this is true because his petition for writ of habeas corpus was
rejected by the Florida Supreme Court and his case was returned to Judge
Neff. 	Id. at 1-2. He also argues that Judge Neff ordered his petition for writ
of habeas corpus to be stricken from the record, id. at 2, and claims his due
process rights have been violated. 	Id. at 3. He has not made the required
showing that he has been denied his equal protection rights, 4 nor has he
shown that he has been denied racial equality. “The phrase “any law
providing for ... equal civil rights” refers to laws “providing for specific civil
rights stated in terms of racial equality,” and does not include rights of
“general application available to all persons or citizens.” Rachel, 384 U.S.
at 792, 86 S.Ct. 1783 (quoted in Conley, 245 F.3d at 1295-96).
Moreover, the denial of one’s “equal civil rights must be ‘manifest in a
formal expression of state law.’” Rachel, 384 U.S. at 803, 86 S.Ct. 1783
(quoted in Conley, 245 F.3d at 1296). “This requirement ensures that
removal is available only in cases where the denial of the right can be
clearly predicted and avoids involving federal judges in ‘the unseemly
process of prejudging their brethren of the state courts.’” 	Id. at 803-04, 86
4 Mr. Morin made a conclusory assertion that he has suffered an equal protection
violation, ECF No. 1 at 4, but he provides no facts in support of that assertion.
Case No. 4:26cv18-MW-MAF
Case 4:26-cv-00018-MW-MAF Document 18 Filed 03/13/26 Page 6 of 9

Page 7 of 9
S. Ct. 1783 (quoted in 245 F.3d at 1296). The Court explained that
“removal is not warranted by an assertion that a denial of rights of equality
may take place and go uncorrected at trial.” Rachel, 384 U.S. at 800, 86 S.
Ct. at 1794. Instead, it is “warranted only if it can be predicted by reference
to a law of general application that the defendant will be denied or cannot
enforce the specified federal rights in the state courts. A state statute
authorizing the denial affords an ample basis for such a prediction.” 384
U.S. at 800, 86 S. Ct. at 1794. The reason is simple - without a
constitutional, statutory or legislative impediment, a person seeking
removal of a criminal prosecution “cannot swear before his case comes to
trial that his enjoyment of all his civil rights [will be] denied to him.” 	Id. at
799, 86 S. Ct. at 1794.
Here, Mr. Morin has not identified a state law which will deny him “the
equal civil rights” enjoyed by all citizens. 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). He has not
alleged that the state court is unable to address a wrong. Instead, his
allegations pertain to the rulings of the judge presiding over his criminal
prosecution. ECF No. 1. That does not meet the requirement of Rachel or
the statutes permitting removal.
Case No. 4:26cv18-MW-MAF
Case 4:26-cv-00018-MW-MAF Document 18 Filed 03/13/26 Page 7 of 9

Page 8 of 9
The motives of the officers bringing the charges may be
corrupt, but that does not show that the state trial court will find
the defendant guilty if he is innocent, or that in any other
manner the defendant will be “denied or cannot enforce in the
courts” of the State any right under a federal law providing for
equal civil rights. The civil rights removal statute does not
require and does not permit the judges of the federal courts to
put their brethren of the state judiciary on trial. Under §
1443(1), the vindication of the defendant's federal rights is left
to the state courts except in the rare situations where it can be
clearly predicted by reason of the operation of a pervasive and
explicit state or federal law that those rights will inevitably be
denied by the very act of bringing the defendant to trial in the
state court.
Conley, 245 F.3d at 1297 (quoting Sunflower Cnty. Colored Baptist Ass’n v.
Trs. of Indianola Mun. Separate Sch. Dist., 369 F.2d 795, 797 (5th Cir.
1966)). In this case, Mr. Morin seeks removal based on his dissatisfaction
with the speed of his prosecution 5 and orders entered by the presiding
judge. His request for removal is based on speculation and fear, 6 not facts
or affirmations that his rights will be denied. He has not met the
requirement of Rachel - that he show with “relative clarity” that the denial of
his civil rights will “take place in the courts of the State” and is “manifest in
5 The speed of prosecution was hampered by the fact that he was found to be
“incompetent to proceed.” ECF No. 1 at 3.
6 Furthermore, because Judge Neff has been appointed to the First District Court of
Appeal, he will no longer be presiding over Mr. Morin’s criminal cases.
Case No. 4:26cv18-MW-MAF
Case 4:26-cv-00018-MW-MAF Document 18 Filed 03/13/26 Page 8 of 9

Page 9 of 9
a formal expression of state law.” 384 U.S. at 803, 86 S. Ct. at 1796.
Accordingly, the notice of removal was not appropriately filed and this case
should be remanded to state court.
RECOMMENDATION
In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this
case be REMANDED to the Second Judicial Circuit Court in and for Leon
County, Florida, that all other pending motions be denied, and the Clerk of
Court be directed to close the file.
IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on March 13, 2026.
S/ 	Martin A. Fitzpatrick
MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report
and Recommendation, a party may serve and file specific written objections
to these proposed findings and recommendations. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A
copy of the objections shall be served upon all other parties. 	A party may
respond to another party’s objections within fourteen (14) days after being
served with a copy thereof. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Any different deadline that
may appear on the electronic docket is for the Court’s internal use only and
does not control. If a party fails to object to the Magistrate Judge’s findings
or recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in this
Report and Recommendation, that party waives the right to challenge on
appeal the District Court’s order based on the unobjected-to factual and legal
conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case No. 4:26cv18-MW-MAF
Case 4:26-cv-00018-MW-MAF Document 18 Filed 03/13/26 Page 9 of 9