The People of The State of New York v. Amelio
- Vargas
- 1:25-cv-02238
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In The People of New York v. Amelio, Judge Vargas denied reconsideration, leaving the state-court remand in place.
Carmine Amelio and the People of the State of New York; the ruling left the matter remanded to the Town Court of the Town of Dover.
What happened
The People of the State of New York v. Carmine Amelio concerns Amelio’s attempt to keep a state-court matter in federal court. The court had previously sent the matter back to the Town Court of the Town of Dover after finding that removal was improper.
Amelio asked the court to reconsider that decision under Rule 59(e). He argued that the court misunderstood which traffic ticket he claimed was retaliatory and that the ticket supported a civil-rights claim involving retaliation for challenging police conduct.
Judge Jeannette A. Vargas denied the motion for reconsideration. She ruled that Amelio identified no new evidence, change in controlling law, clear error, or manifest injustice, and that his general due-process and First Amendment allegations did not satisfy the legal standard for removing the matter under the federal civil-rights removal statute.
The detailed version
- The People of The State of New York v. Amelio · No. 1:25-cv-02238
- Vargas
- July 21, 2025
Background
On April 16, 2025, the court remanded the matter to the Town Court of the Town of Dover after finding that removal to federal court was improper. Carmine Amelio later moved for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
Amelio argued that the court had misstated which attached traffic ticket he claimed was retaliatory. He also argued that the second ticket supported a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that Trooper Cruz retaliated against him for challenging police conduct and acted under color of state law. Amelio further argued that the state court could not adequately remedy the alleged constitutional violation because it lacked jurisdiction over § 1983 claims.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally limited to an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
The court said that its review of both traffic tickets meant that the clarification about which ticket Amelio considered retaliatory made no substantive difference to the earlier decision. The court also found that Amelio identified no new evidence or controlling authority requiring a different result.
The court applied the two-part standard for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). It explained that the relevant federal right must arise under a law providing specific civil-rights protections stated in terms of racial equality. General claims under the First Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment’s due-process guarantee do not meet that requirement. The court noted that neither Amelio’s motion nor his original notice of removal alleged a violation of a constitutional provision protecting against racial discrimination.
Disposition
Judge Jeannette A. Vargas denied Amelio’s motion for reconsideration. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion from the docket. The earlier remand to the Town Court of the Town of Dover therefore remained in place.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.