Marvin v. The State of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-01656
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Marvin v. The State of New York, Judge Swain dismissed Marvin’s attempted removal and habeas filing because he could not act for Donald Trump.
Mark Marvin’s attempted federal removal and request to seek relief for Donald Trump were dismissed; Trump’s state criminal case was not removed to federal court.
What happened
Mark Marvin, representing himself, tried to remove Donald Trump’s New York state criminal case to federal court and also sought a court order concerning Trump’s detention. Marvin was not a defendant in that case.
The court ruled that only a defendant can remove a state criminal case, and Marvin could not seek relief for Trump without explaining why Trump could not appear himself. The court also said Marvin’s challenge to the trial schedule was an argument for Trump to raise, not Marvin.
Judge Swain dismissed the action, declined to allow Marvin to amend his filing, denied him permission to proceed without paying fees on appeal, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
The detailed version
- Marvin v. The State of New York · No. 1:24-cv-01656
- Laura Swain
- July 3, 2024
Background
Mark Marvin, who was representing himself, presented the filing as a notice to remove Donald Trump’s criminal case from New York State Supreme Court, New York County, to federal court. He also presented it as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a request for court-ordered relief from unlawful custody or detention. The case was People v. Trump, Ind. No. 71543-23/001. The opinion states that a jury found Trump guilty of 34 charged counts, but that the state criminal case remained open because Trump had not yet been sentenced.
Court’s Reasoning
The court relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1455(a), which permits a defendant in a state criminal prosecution to file a notice of removal in the federal district covering the state court. Marvin was not a defendant in Trump’s criminal case, so he could not remove it himself.
The court also ruled that Marvin could not act for Trump either. A person seeking to litigate on someone else’s behalf must adequately explain why the actual person involved cannot appear personally, such as because of inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or another disability. The court found that Marvin did not satisfy that requirement.
Marvin argued that scheduling the state criminal case during Passover excluded observant Jewish people from the jury pool and affected Trump’s trial. The court said that argument belonged to Trump, the defendant in the state case, rather than Marvin. Because Marvin could not bring the action for himself or for Trump, the court found that amendment would be futile.
Ruling
The court dismissed the action because Marvin could not remove Trump’s state criminal case on his own behalf or on Trump’s behalf and could not obtain habeas relief on Trump’s behalf. Judge Laura Taylor Swain declined to grant leave to amend. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the required fees for purposes of an appeal. It also ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.