The People of the State of New York v. Deem

Background

Michael A. Deem, appearing without a lawyer, filed a notice seeking to move his pending state criminal case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The opinion says he was arrested on January 27, 2022, at the Mount Pleasant Justice Court after allegedly refusing to wear a mask in the courtroom. The attached charging information listed obstruction, resisting arrest, trespass, and disorderly conduct. The opinion also notes that Deem did not identify the state court where the criminal proceedings were pending; a separate federal filing identified the Pleasantville Village Court.

Legal standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1455, a defendant seeking to move a state criminal prosecution to federal court must file a notice of removal with specified materials. If the notice shows on its face that removal is impermissible, the federal court must summarily send the case back to state court under § 1455(b)(4).

The court explained that state criminal prosecutions may generally be removed in two situations relevant here: when the prosecution is against a federal officer or armed-forces member for actions taken under official authority, or when the defendant shows that the state courts have denied or cannot enforce a federal right providing for the equal civil rights of citizens. The defendant bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction.

Court’s analysis

Deem did not allege that he was a federal officer or armed-forces member being prosecuted for actions taken under official authority. The court therefore found no basis for removal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442 or 1442a.

For removal under § 1443(1), the court applied a two-part test. The claimed right must arise under a federal law protecting specific civil rights stated in terms of racial equality, and the defendant must show that the right would be denied or could not be enforced in the state court. The court also explained that general constitutional or statutory claims, including claims that a prosecution violates due process or is vague, corrupt, baseless, or unsupported by evidence, ordinarily do not satisfy this standard by themselves.

Deem alleged that compulsory face coverings were associated with race-based slavery or indentured servitude and claimed that the state court’s mask requirement lacked a factual or scientific basis. The court said these allegations did not plausibly show that he would be denied rights concerning racial equality. Deem did not allege facts about his own race or facts suggesting that the mask requirement was anything other than a general health and safety rule applied without regard to race.

The court also considered Deem’s allegations that various New York Supreme Court justices belonged to secret societies, cabals, or criminal rings, and that the state-court judge had been selected because of such an affiliation. The court characterized these allegations as legally frivolous and found that they did not support removal.

Disposition

The court ruled that Deem had not pleaded facts showing that removal was proper. The action was remanded to state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(4). The court directed the Clerk of Court to send the order to both the Mount Pleasant Justice Court and the Pleasantville Village Court because the proper state court was unclear. The order closed the federal matter and terminated all pending motions. Judge Laura Taylor Swain also directed the Clerk to mail a copy of the order to Deem and record service on the docket.