USA v. Woodham

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
State of New Hampshire
v. 	Case No. 21-cr-128-JL
Grace Woodham
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the court is Grace Woodham’s “Motion for Change of
Venue” (Doc. No. 1), which the Court has construed and docketed
as the initial filing in an action seeking removal, to this
court, of a State court criminal case: State v. Woodham, No.
215-CR-2019-259, 425, 215 (N.H. Super. Ct., Grafton Cty.)
(“Criminal Case”). 	The matter is before the undersigned
Magistrate Judge for review. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1455; LR
4.3(d)(2).
Background
I. 	State Court Criminal Case
Ms. Woodham was charged in the Grafton County Superior
Court (“GCSC”) with misdemeanor and felony offenses, including
stalking, resisting arrest, criminal trespass, contempt, and
drug crimes. 	See June 10, 2019 Compl., Criminal Case; July 19,
2019 Indictment, id.; Oct. 11, 2019 Indictment, id. 	According
to the public docket in the Criminal Case, the GCSC issued a
Case 1:21-cr-00128-JL Document 2 Filed 04/06/22 Page 1 of 9

2
bail order on August 13, 2019, id.; held a video
arraignment/bail hearing on November 12, 2019, id.; and entered
a “Waiver of Arraignment – Bail Order” by agreement of the
parties on December 3, 2019, id.
The GCSC docket sheet indicates that the criminal charges
brought against Ms. Woodham in the GCSC were dismissed without
prejudice on January 12, 2021. 	Id. 	It appears that the GCSC
then conducted civil commitment proceedings in the Criminal
Case, based on Ms. Woodham’s alleged dangerousness, and that,
pursuant to those proceedings, Ms. Woodham was civilly committed
on that basis on July 23, 2021. 	See id.1
II. 	Request for Removal
Ms. Woodham asserts that she is seeking removal: (1) to
address a violation of her “Due Process rights under the 14th
amendment”; and (2) because “[p]rosecutors, police & witnesses
have suppressed & falsified evidence in violation of [illegible]
& Brady which are (axiomatically) material to the outcome.”
Doc. No. 1, at 1. 	Ms. Woodham’s removal filing does not assert
any additional information about her due process claims, or any
1 The GCSC docket sheet indicates that on October 13, 2021,
Ms. Woodham appealed the GCSC’s decision in the civil commitment
proceedings to the New Hampshire Supreme Court (“NHSC”). 	It
appears that the GCSC closed Ms. Woodham’s criminal case on
April 27, 2022. 	Neither the docket nor Ms. Woodham’s filings in
this case reveal the status of her NHSC appeal.
Case 1:21-cr-00128-JL Document 2 Filed 04/06/22 Page 2 of 9

3
other claims. 	See id. 	In addition, Ms. Woodham, in her removal
notice, asks this Court to direct the Grafton County Jail
(“GCJ”) to obtain copies of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and this Court’s local rules, presumably for use by individuals
incarcerated at that facility. 	See id.
Discussion
I. 	Removal
A. 	Standard
“State criminal defendants may remove state criminal
prosecutions to federal court in ‘rare circumstances.’” 	New
Hampshire v. Strahan, No. 17-cr-183-JL, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
215678, at *1, 2017 WL 6949513, at *1 (Dec. 19, 2017), R&R
approved, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7343, at *1, 2018 WL 460223, at
*1 (D.N.H. Jan. 17, 2018). 	“A removing defendant has the
burden of establishing that a case is within the federal court’s
removal jurisdiction.” 	Massachusetts v. Vilbon, Civ. Action No.
21-11510-IT, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215309, at *2-*3, 2021 WL
5180237, at *1 (D. Mass. Nov. 8, 2021) (citing Shamrock Oil &
Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108 (1941)). 	The federal
court must remand a removed state criminal case where the
removal documents, on their face, fail to demonstrate that the
matter is properly removed to federal court. 	See 28 U.S.C. §
1455(b)(4); LR 4.3(d)(2); see also Vilbon, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
Case 1:21-cr-00128-JL Document 2 Filed 04/06/22 Page 3 of 9

4
215309, at *4, 2021 WL 5180237, at *2. 	As Ms. Woodham is self-
represented, this court construes her filings liberally. 	See
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam); Vieira
v. De Souza, 22 F.4th 304, 311 (1st Cir. 2022).
B. 	Criminal Case is Closed
Ms. Woodham’s criminal case in the GCSC was dismissed on
January 12, 2021. 	A state court criminal defendant may remove a
state court “criminal prosecution[]” to a federal district court
in the district “within which such prosecution is pending.” 	28
U.S.C. § 1455(a) (emphasis added). 	“Critically, [§ 1455] refers
to criminal ‘prosecutions,’ consistent with the notion that the
point of removal is to have the trial go forward in a federal,
rather than state, court.” 	Miller v. Louisiana, Civ. Action No.
18-14251, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46013, at *5, 2019 WL 1293273,
at *2 (Mar. 1, 2019), R&R approved, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45494,
at *1, 2019 WL 1277522, at *1 (E.D. La. Mar. 20, 2019). 	Where a
“criminal case is finished at the state trial court level, . . .
removal to this trial court is improper after the case is
closed.” 	Barber v. Vance, Case No. 3:16-cv-2105-AC, 2019 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 9224, at *5, 2019 WL 267874, at *2 (D. Or. Jan. 18,
2019). 	Accordingly, removal of Ms. Woodham’s state court
criminal case is improper, as the state court matter is closed.
Case 1:21-cr-00128-JL Document 2 Filed 04/06/22 Page 4 of 9

5
C. 	Procedural Defect -- Time Limit
The procedural requirements for removing a state criminal
case to this court include a time limit. 	“A notice of removal
of a criminal prosecution shall be filed not later than 30 days
after the arraignment in the State court, or at any time before
trial, whichever is earlier.” 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(1). 	“[The]
statutory procedures for removal are to be strictly construed.”
Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002). 	A
state criminal case removed to the federal court after the
thirty-day deadline may be remanded when there is no showing of
good cause for the delay. 	See United States v. Palacios, No.
3:21-CR-76 JD, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198117, at *3-*4, 2021 WL
4804167, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 14, 2021).
According to the GCSC docket in Ms. Woodham’s criminal
case, the latest date on which she was arraigned in that matter
was December 3, 2019. 	And no trial was held in the Criminal
Case, as the criminal charges were dismissed on January 12,
2021. 	Ms. Woodham did not file this removal action until August
5, 2021, which is nineteen months after she was arraigned in the
GCSC, and eighteen months after the expiration of the thirty-day
time limit set by § 1455(b)(1) for removing her state court
criminal case to federal court. 	Ms. Woodham did not assert
anything in the removal notice filed here which demonstrates
good cause for extending that deadline. 	Accordingly, this
Case 1:21-cr-00128-JL Document 2 Filed 04/06/22 Page 5 of 9

6
matter is properly remanded to the GCSC, as it was not timely
filed here.
D. 	Constitutional Grounds– 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1)
Ms. Woodham, in her removal notice, claims violations of
her Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, including her right
to be provided with material exculpatory evidence in the State’s
possession. 	Section 1443(1) “authorizes removing a criminal
case when necessary to enforce certain civil rights.” 	Yashar’al
v. Hopper, 849 F. App’x 591, 592 (7th Cir. 2021). 	“To remove a
case under Section 1443(1), the criminal defendant must allege
that [s]he has been denied a federal right arising under a
specific law or statute protecting racial equality, and that
[s]he cannot enforce his federal civil rights in his state court
criminal proceedings.” 	Massachusetts v. Libertad, Civ. Action
No. 22-10131-DJC, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27707, at *4, 2022 WL
479799, at *2 (D. Mass. Feb. 16, 2022) (citing Johnson v.
Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 219 (1975)).
The due process violations Ms. Woodham alleges here do not
provide a valid basis for removal of her state criminal case
under § 1443(1). 	See Vlaming v. West Point Sch. Bd., 10 F.4th
300, 309 (4th Cir. 2021) (citing Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S.
780, 792, 803 (1966)). 	Ms. Woodham’s removal notice fails to
assert a violation of her right to racial equality, or that,
Case 1:21-cr-00128-JL Document 2 Filed 04/06/22 Page 6 of 9

7
even if she could allege such a violation, that she would be
unable to enforce that right in state court. 	Accordingly, Ms.
Woodham has failed to assert sufficient facts to demonstrate
that removal is the proper avenue for her to take to vindicate
her due process rights.
E. 	Remaining Sources of Removal Jurisdiction
Ms. Woodham’s removal notice does not demonstrate that she
is entitled to removal to this Court on any additional grounds
upon which this Court can exercise its removal jurisdiction.
The substantive grounds for removal of criminal cases
are limited, as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1442
(allowing removal of actions against federal officers
and agencies for acts done under color of law), 1442a
(allowing removal of actions against members of the
armed forces for acts done under color of their
office), 1443(1) (allowing removal of actions where a
person “is denied or cannot enforce in the [state]
court ... a right under any law providing for [his]
equal civil rights”) and 1443(2) (allowing removal of
actions 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”).
Vilbon, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215309, at *3, 2021 WL 5180237, at
*1. 	Sections 1442(a) and 1443(2) are not applicable here
because Ms. Woodham does not allege that she is a federal
officer or the agent of a federal officer, and section 1442a is
not applicable because Ms. Woodham does not allege that she is a
member of the armed forces. 	As Ms. Woodham has failed to
Case 1:21-cr-00128-JL Document 2 Filed 04/06/22 Page 7 of 9

8
provide any basis for conferring removal jurisdiction in this
court, the district judge should summarily remand this matter to
the state court. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(4).
II. 	Injunctive Relief – GCJ Legal Materials
Ms. Woodham was incarcerated at the GCJ at the time she
filed the removal notice in this matter. 	In that notice, Ms.
Woodham asks this Court to direct the GCJ to obtain copies of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local
Rules for the use of those incarcerated at that facility. 	The
Court is aware that Ms. Woodham has been transferred out of the
GCJ, and is now incarcerated at the Secure Psychiatric Unit at
the New Hampshire State Prison. 	Assuming, without deciding,
that Ms. Woodham could seek such relief in a removal matter, the
District Judge should deny Ms. Woodham’s request for an order
directing the GCJ to obtain particular legal materials, as that
request has been mooted by her transfer out of that facility.
See Snell v. Neville, 998 F.3d 474, 485 (1st Cir. 2021) (“An
inmate generally loses the right to challenge prison conditions
or policies at a particular facility when [she] transfers or
leaves that prison because [her] complaints would no longer have
any substantial impact on [her] life.”) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted.
Case 1:21-cr-00128-JL Document 2 Filed 04/06/22 Page 8 of 9

9
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the District Judge should
summarily remand this matter to the Grafton County Superior
Court, and deny Ms. Woodham’s request for injunctive relief.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) must be
filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. 	See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	The fourteen-day period may be extended
upon motion.
Failure to file any objection within the specified time
waives the right to appeal the district court’s Order. 	See
Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir.
2016). 	Only those issues raised in the objection(s) to this R&R
“‘are subject to review in the district court.’” 	Id.
Additionally, any issues “‘not preserved by such objection are
precluded on appeal.’” 	Id. (citations omitted).
__________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
April 6, 2022
cc: 	Grace Woodham, pro se
Case 1:21-cr-00128-JL Document 2 Filed 04/06/22 Page 9 of 9