SHAH v. LEON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
RAJIV SHASHIKANT SHAH,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No.: 4:25cv500-MW/MAF
LEON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
Defendant.
_________________________/
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, ECF No. 5, and has also reviewed de novo Plaintiff’s objections,
ECF No. 10. As noted in the report and recommendation, Plaintiff has not met the
two-part test for removal of a state criminal proceeding under Georgia v. Rachel,
384 U.S. 780 (1966).
Plaintiff takes issue with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that this
case be remanded because Plaintiff has not identified a formal expression of state
law that will deny him equal civil rights in state court. Plaintiff contends that the
very prosecution itself is selective and constitutes a “formal expression” because it
substitutes “nationality and ethnicity as evidentiary predicates for fraud.” ECF No.
10 at 2. But Plaintiff’s argument is both nonsensical and disconnected from the facts
as supported by the record. Here, Plaintiff has been charged with organized scheme
Case 4:25-cv-00500-MW-MAF Document 11 Filed 12/30/25 Page 1 of 3

2
to defraud, criminal use of personal identification, money laundering, and securities
fraud, based on the alleged fraudulent use of social security numbers and fingerprints
and fraudulently notarizing documents for purposes of participating in Florida’s
Quota Alcoholic Beverage License Drawing. See ECF No. 8-1 at 6–12 (probable
cause affidavit). Although Plaintiff may wish to present a selective prosecution
defense to his charges, the very fact that he is being prosecuted is not a “formal
expression of state law” prohibiting the enforcement of any equality-based civil
rights in state court. See Cave v. Florida, 814 F. App’x 555, 556 (11th Cir. 2020)
(describing “exceptionally high” standard for federal removal statute). In short,
Plaintiff’s 	objections 	do 	not 	call 	into 	question 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge’s
recommendation to remand this case for failure to meet the two-part test for federal
removal.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
The report and recommendation, ECF No. 5, is accepted and adopted, over
the Plaintiff’s objections, as this Court’s opinion. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s case is
REMANDED to the Circuit Court for the Second Judicial Circuit in and for Leon
Case 4:25-cv-00500-MW-MAF Document 11 Filed 12/30/25 Page 2 of 3

3
County. The Clerk shall take all steps necessary to effect the remand and close the
file.
SO ORDERED on December 30, 2025.
s/Mark E. Walker
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-00500-MW-MAF Document 11 Filed 12/30/25 Page 3 of 3