People of the State of New York v. Watson
People of the State of New York; Attorney Matthew W. Daloisio Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem v. Robert Watson; Evelyn Watson (Deceased)
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-05995
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In People of the State of New York v. Robert Watson, Chief Judge Swain gave Watson 30 days to amend his removal notice or face dismissal.
Robert Watson’s attempt to remove a state criminal case; Matthew W. Daloisio and Evelyn Watson were ordered terminated as parties.
What happened
People of the State of New York v. Robert Watson concerns Robert Watson’s attempt to move an unidentified state criminal case to federal court. Watson represented himself, named an attorney and his deceased mother as parties, and did not identify the criminal case he wanted to move.
The court explained that a person seeking to move a state criminal case must identify the case, provide the required documents, and state a valid federal basis for the move. Watson did not claim that he was a federal officer or member of the armed forces, and he did not provide facts showing that he could not enforce equal civil rights in the state court.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain gave Watson 30 days to file an amended notice identifying the People of the State of New York as plaintiff, himself as defendant, the criminal case, and the grounds for removal. The court also ordered the clerk to remove Matthew W. Daloisio and Evelyn Watson from the action; if Watson does not amend on time, the court will dismiss the action.
The detailed version
- People of the State of New York v. Watson · No. 1:25-cv-05995
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 26, 2025
Background
Robert Watson, appearing without a lawyer, filed a notice seeking to remove a state criminal case to the federal district court. The notice did not identify the criminal case. It named Matthew W. Daloisio, an attorney with the Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem, as the plaintiff and Watson’s deceased mother, Evelyn Watson, as a defendant.
The court had previously allowed Watson to proceed without paying court fees in advance. The court concluded that Daloisio and Evelyn Watson were not proper parties to this removal action.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1455, a defendant seeking to remove a state criminal prosecution must file a signed notice identifying the grounds for removal and include copies of the relevant documents served in the state case. If removal is impermissible from the face of the notice, the federal court must send the matter back to state court.
The court explained that potentially removable state criminal cases include prosecutions against federal officers or members of the armed forces for actions taken in their official roles, and prosecutions in which the defendant cannot enforce federal equal-rights protections in state court. The defendant bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction, and doubts are resolved against removal.
Application
Watson did not identify the criminal case he sought to remove. He also did not allege that he was a federal officer or member of the armed forces being prosecuted for actions taken in an official role. Nor did he allege facts showing that he could not enforce his federal equal-rights protections in the state criminal proceeding.
Order
The court granted Watson 30 days’ leave to file an amended notice of removal. The amended notice must identify the People of the State of New York as the plaintiff, Robert Watson as the defendant, the criminal case he seeks to remove, and the grounds supporting federal jurisdiction. The court directed the clerk to terminate Matthew W. Daloisio and Evelyn Watson from the action because they are not proper parties. If Watson does not file the amended notice within the permitted time, the court will dismiss the action and direct the clerk to enter judgment.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court addressed the requirements for attempting to move a state criminal case to federal court and allowed amendment; it did not decide the underlying criminal matter.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.