Conspirators v. Chandan S. Vora

ALD-301 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-2566
___________
CONSPIRATORS
v.
CHANDAN S. VORA
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 09-cv-00082)
District Judge: Honorable Gustave Diamond
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal due to Jurisdictional Defect,
Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or
Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
August 27, 2009
Before: SLOVITER, FUENTES and JORDAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: September 21, 2009 )
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Chandan S. Vora appeals from an 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
“petition for removal” filed on April 6, 2009.

-- 1 of 3 --

Vora states that due to the alleged conspiratorial activities, she “does not have time to1
eat also, many times[.] [A]nd Vora has to make sure that she can get around, as she has
nobody to bank on, or [anybody] who will take care of her at anytime as her parents are
dead and circumstances got perpetrated on Vora [so] that she could not even make visits
to India to her sister [and] brothers, such that by filing such false charges on me, time and
again, more than 50, these conspirators have managed to cut me off completely from my
2
As she has done repeatedly before, Vora filed a “petition for removal” in the
District Court. She wanted all charges against her dismissed and she sought federal court
oversight of and protection from “conspirators” employed by Cambria County police
officers and the magisterial district court, who, she said, issued false citations against her
and demanded that she pay overdue fines and costs to the county, despite her inability to
pay. She claimed that racial and religious bigotry motivated these charges. In her
supplement to the petition, Vora attached a non-traffic citation (No. NT-0000222-09)
charging her with “scatter rubbish upon land/stream” dated April 1, 2009, two notices of
overdue fines and costs (in CP-11-CR-0002644-2006 and CP-11-CR-0000409-2000)
totaling $750, and an undated “petition” submitted by the City of Johnstown, in which the
City sought a court order permitting it to enter Vora’s property for the purpose of
removing trash and to sell any items of value, the proceeds of which would be applied to
the cost of the trash removal by the City.
The District Court concluded that the “Petition for Removal” sought to attack state
court proceedings over which the District Court had no jurisdiction. Vora filed a timely
motion to vacate, in which she reasserted, inter alia, that she has been totally disabled
since 1983. The District Court denied the motion. This timely appeal followed.1

-- 2 of 3 --

kins [so] that nobody wants to accept me as a family member and . . . it is impossible for
Vora to live alone in India without a family member taking care of her.” See Motion to
Vacate at 19.
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).
Although we sympathize with Vora’s personal hardships, after reviewing the
District Court pleadings and notice of appeal, we conclude as a matter of law that her
petition was correctly denied. Vora petitioned for removal, presumably under the civil
rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1443. The civil rights removal statute applies only to
the removal of state court proceedings. Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1447(a). We doubt that
any of the proceedings Vora seeks to remove qualifies as a state court proceeding. Even
if we assume arguendo that the civil rights removal statute applies to municipal code
violation proceedings, to the municipal petition to enter onto Vora’s land, and to notices
of overdue fines issued by the Cambria County Court of Common Pleas, Vora’s 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 Cir. 1968).st
Having found no legal merit to this cause, we will dismiss the appeal pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Vora’s motion for a stay is denied.

-- 3 of 3 --