United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
G. FLEISSIG CJ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon the notice of removal filed
by petitioner Aaron Larose, seeking to remove his state court
post-conviction action to this Court. The action will be
case at bar, petitoner cites to two of his state court
criminal cases in his Notice of Removal. He states:
Notice is hereby given that Aaron Larose will request the
United States District Court ED of Missouri, Eastern District
111 SO. Tenth St., St. Louis, MO 63102 to remove into Federal
Court the cases of Aaron Larose, State v. Larose,
0911-CR03956-01 and Case 1411-CC00186, Aaron Larose, on the
grounds that Aaron Larose cannot enforce his federal
protected supremacy rights, 1st, 5th,
14thAmendments to the Constitution, by currently
being assigned a public defender to the case that not only
has a reputation of acting on behalf of the state and
undermining pending cases, or relevant cases on behalf of the
state. Under Missouri precedent Missouri courts provide a
haven of refuge for such treachery, of acting in concert in
reveals that, on April 1, 2011, a jury convicted petitioner
of murder in the first degree and armed criminal action.
See State v. Larose, No. 0911-CR03956-01
(11th Judicial Circuit, St. Charles County Court).
On June 6, 2011, the Court sentenced petitioner to life
imprisonment without the possibility of parole on the murder
charge and thirty years' imprisonment on the armed
criminal action charge, with both counts to run
consecutively. Petitioner is presently incarcerated at Potosi
Correctional Center (“PCC”).
appealed his convictions and sentences to the Missouri Court
of Appeals, which affirmed his conviction on July 16, 2013.
See State v. Larose, No. ED97043 (Mo.Ct.App. July
16, 2013). Petitioner subsequently sought and was denied
Supreme Court review. State v. Larose, No. SC93690
(Mo. Nov. 26, 2013).
filed a post-conviction motion in the trial court based upon
prosecutorial misconduct, violations of Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and ineffective assistance
of trial and appellate counsel. See Larose v. State,
No. 1411-CC00186 (11th Circuit, St. Charles
County). Parts of petitioner's motion were denied on the
record on March 11, 2015. However, petitioner was granted an
evidentiary hearing on certain parts of his motion, which was
held on November 6, 2015. The matter was taken under
advisement and proposed findings of fact and law were filed
at that time. A second hearing was set for July 27, 2017.
Although petitioner has been assigned counsel for the
hearing, he sought to remove the case to this Court prior to
the hearing date.
case at bar, petitioner seeks to remove his motion to vacate
his conviction, Case No. 1411-CC00186, to this Court because
he allegedly does not believe he will receive a fair review
of his post-conviction motion in St. Charles County Court.
petition for removal, petitioner claims that he “cannot
enforce his supremacy rights in Missouri Courts to seek DNA
testing” in order to prove his purported innocence
of his crime. Thus, petitioner believes he should be able to
remove his post-conviction motion to this Court for review.
Petitioner has not, however, identified a statute, under
which he believes that he can base his removal. Nevertheless,
the Court will consider the notice of removal, beginning with
considering whether removal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C.
1443 allows for the removal of a state criminal
prosecution “against any person who is denied
or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under
any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of
the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction
thereof.” 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). Removal
jurisdiction under § 1443(1) is very limited. City
of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 828 (1966);
see also Minnesota v. Bey, Nos. 12-CR-0256 &
12-CR-0257 (JRT), 2012 WL 6139223, at *1 (D. Minn. Dec. 11,
2012). In order for a state criminal prosecution to be
removed under § 1443(1), the removal petition must
satisfy a two-prong test. Johnson v. Mississippi,
421 U.S. 213, 219-20 (1975). First, it must appear that the
right allegedly denied the petitioner arises under a federal
law providing for civil rights stated in terms of racial
equality. Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 792
(1966). Second, it must appear that the petitioner is denied
or cannot enforce the specified federal rights in state
court. Id. at 803. Satisfaction of the second prong
typically requires that the “denial be manifest in a
formal expression of state law, ” such as a state
legislative or constitutional provision, “rather than a
denial first made manifest in the trial of the case.”
has been criminally convicted. Moreover, his post-conviction
motion has been partially ruled upon by the St. Charles
County Court. It will hold an evidentiary hearing on the
remaining part of petitioner's motion for post-conviction
relief on July 27, 2017. Thus, the state court criminal case
petitioner seeks to remove has been partially adjudicated,
and can no longer be considered a state criminal prosecution
that can be removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443.
petitioner were seeking removal of a state court prosecution,
he would fail to satisfy either prong of the § 1443(1)
test. He fails to allege that he is being denied a right
stated in terms of racial equality, and he fails to show that
there is a state law preventing him from raising his federal
claims in state court. As noted above, petitioner can ...