and 08-3797 BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES KILLINGER v. Dr. Chandan S. Vora

ALD-142 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
Nos. 08-3288 and 08-3797
___________
BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES
KILLINGER,
v.
DR. CHANDAN S. VORA
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 08-cv-00149)
District Judge: Honorable Gustave Diamond
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to
Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
March 26, 2009
Before: SLOVITER, FUENTES and JORDAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: April 8, 2009)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Doctor Chandan Vora appeals from the orders of the United States District Court
of the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissing her notice of removal pursuant to 28

-- 1 of 4 --

Srinivasa Ramanujan, born in South India in 1887, was a brilliant mathematician1
whose contributions to the field were comparable to mathematicians Euler and Jacobi.
He moved to England in 1914, but he soon fell ill. He returned to India in 1919 and died
in 1920, at the age of thirty-two.
2
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and denying her motion to vacate.
In June 2008, Vora filed a notice of removal and an “Omnibus” motion to dismiss
all charges of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles against her and requested that her license be
reinstated. Vora attached a copy of the Official Notice of Suspension of Driving
Privileges issued by the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing
regarding traffic citation No. B51231670. The Notice informed Vora that her driving
privilege was suspended effective May 21, 2008, for failing to respond to the traffic
citation and noted that she owed the Bureau $93.50. Vora also attached a copy of a CT
Scan report dated August 18, 2005, which was taken for a possible brain lesion.
In her notice of removal (which is very similar to one she filed previously), Vora
alleges “deep conspiratorial activities of Italian origin people with their supporters and
workers which also include some British origin people as well as Irish people and
Catholics . . . to defeat me in all respects....” She accuses the defendants of continuous
discrimination of all kinds, including “extracting” her inventions and discoveries and
ruining her reputation and that of her family. As she has asserted in a prior complaint,
Vora alleges that the defendants engage in “fabricating diagnoses, emailing ordinances,
statutes to target Vora, creat[ing] a 2 Ramanujan, in her life. . . .” She asserts that hernd 1

-- 2 of 4 --

The appeals have been consolidated.2
3
condition is neurologic, not psychiatric, emphasizing that she has no history of psychiatric
illness or of paranoid schizophrenia.
By order entered on June 30, 2008, the District Court granted Vora in forma
pauperis status and dismissed her notice of removal as frivolous because it sought the
removal of state court proceedings over which the District Court had no jurisdiction.
Vora then filed a motion to vacate, attaching a copy of letter from the Bureau of Driver
Licensing dated October 3, 2007, notifying her that the suspension that had been imposed
at that time was rescinded. She also included an “affidavit” in which she reiterated that
she is completely sane and that a judge’s appointment of a Guardian ad litem for her (who
was later discharged) was fraudulent. The District Court denied the motion on August 13,
2008. Vora filed timely notices of appeal from both District Court orders.2
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Upon de novo
review of the record and careful consideration of Vora’s notice of appeal and other
submissions, we conclude that no substantial question is presented on appeal and that
summary action is warranted. See LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. Vora’s notice of removal
was correctly denied. She petitioned for removal, presumably under the civil rights
removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1443, alleging that the state court judgments, jury verdicts,
bench warrants and citations were the result of a conspiracy by certain Italian, British,
Irish and Catholic officers and other municipal officials or employees to violate her civil

-- 3 of 4 --

4
rights. The civil rights removal statute applies only to the removal of state court
proceedings. Id.; See also 28 U.S.C. § 1447(a). Even if we assume arguendo that the
civil rights removal statute applies to the matters that Vora seeks to remove, her
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 Cir. 1968).st
Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court.
Appellant’s motion for injunctive relief pending appeal is denied.

-- 4 of 4 --