Mathieu v. Cazi
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-08663
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Mathieu v. Cazi, Chief Judge Swain ruled the court could not reconsider its remand order and closed the action.
James Mathieu’s request to reopen and transfer the removed criminal case was not considered because the court ruled it lacked jurisdiction. The action was closed, and future filings were restricted as described in the order.
What happened
James Mathieu, representing himself, asked the Southern District of New York to reopen his case, transfer it to the Eastern District of New York, and send the records there. The case involved his attempt to move a criminal prosecution from a New York state court to federal court.
The court had already sent the case back to state court because Mathieu filed the removal notice in the wrong federal district. Federal law generally bars review or reconsideration of such a remand order, and the court found that neither exception for federal officers or racial-equality rights applied.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ruled that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider Mathieu’s request. She closed the action, limited future filings in the case to documents directed to the Second Circuit, and denied fee-free appeal status after certifying that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Mathieu v. Cazi · No. 1:23-cv-08663
- Laura Swain
- Nov. 1, 2023
Background
James Mathieu, proceeding without a lawyer, filed this action to remove his criminal case from the Criminal Court of the City of New York, County of Queens, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1455. The court previously ruled that removal was improper because Mathieu filed the removal notice in a federal district different from the district where the prosecution was pending. On October 5, 2023, it remanded the action to the state court.
Mathieu then filed a notice of appeal and asked the district court to reopen the action, transfer it to the Eastern District of New York, and send that court the records along with the appeal.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) generally bars appeals and district-court reconsideration of an order remanding a case to state court. That bar applies to remand orders based on a removal defect when the remand occurs within 30 days after the removal notice. Here, the court remanded the action three days after Mathieu filed the notice, based on the filing-location defect.
The court also considered the two statutory exceptions allowing review of certain remand orders. Those exceptions concern removals under 28 U.S.C. § 1442, involving federal officers or members of the armed forces acting under official authority, and § 1443, involving specified federal racial-equality rights that cannot be enforced in state court. The court found that Mathieu did not allege facts bringing his removal within either exception.
Because the action had already been remanded, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction—that is, legal authority—to take further action on the case. The court also explained that Mathieu’s notice of appeal did not prevent it from ruling on the request because the appeal was from a non-reviewable remand order.
Disposition
The court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction under § 1447(d) to consider Mathieu’s letter asking for reconsideration. The action was closed. The Clerk of Court was directed to accept only filings directed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the court warned that frivolous or meritless additional filings could lead to an order requiring Mathieu to explain why he should not be barred from filing further documents in the action.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied fee-free appeal status.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.