Ware Bey v. Brann
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-07247
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Ware Bey v. Brann, Judge Swain remanded Vicky Ware Bey’s attempted removal because only defendants may remove, and the state case belonged in state court.
Vicky Ware Bey’s attempt to move the state-court case to federal court was unsuccessful; the case was returned to Kings County Supreme Court, and the federal action was closed. The warning and appeal-related fee ruling also affect Bey.
What happened
In Ware Bey v. Brann, Vicky Ware Bey, who was representing herself, tried to move a case from Kings County Supreme Court to federal court. The court explained that only a defendant may remove a state case, not the plaintiff who filed it.
The court also said that a case may be removed only to the federal district covering the location of the state case, and Kings County is not in the Southern District of New York. It therefore sent the case back to Kings County Supreme Court, closed the federal case, and ended all pending matters.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain warned Bey that further improper removals or other frivolous lawsuits could lead to a requirement that she obtain permission before filing new cases in that court. The court also denied fee-waiver status for an appeal after finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Ware Bey v. Brann · No. 1:23-cv-07247
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 17, 2023
Background
Vicky Ware Bey, appearing without a lawyer, filed a notice seeking to move a case pending in Kings County Supreme Court to the Southern District of New York. She had not paid the removal fee and had not submitted an application to proceed without paying court fees. The court did not rely on those issues to decide the matter because it found the removal improper.
Reasons for Remand
The court explained that federal law allows a defendant in a state-court action to remove the case to federal court when the federal court has original jurisdiction. A plaintiff cannot remove the case that the plaintiff filed. Because Bey was the plaintiff in the state-court action, she could not remove it.
The court also found that removal was directed to the wrong federal district. Federal law requires removal to the district covering the place where the state action is pending. The Kings County Supreme Court action was not pending in a county within the Southern District of New York.
Prior Related Filing and Warning
The court’s records showed that Bey had sought to remove the same state-court action in an earlier round of this case, No. 22-CV-2400. The court had remanded that matter for the same reasons, and the appeal was dismissed. The court stated that Bey was, or should have been, aware that the new removal was improper.
The court warned that additional improper removal notices or other frivolous litigation could result in an order barring Bey from filing new actions in that court without prior permission.
Disposition
The court remanded the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) to Kings County Supreme Court, directed the clerk to send that court a copy of the order, and closed the federal case. All pending matters were terminated. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.