FELKINS v. NARAAYAN
1:25-cv-04331
D.N.J.May 19, 2025Background
- Pro se defendant Bhoj Subraminya Naraayan removed a case from Pemberton Township Municipal Court to federal district court, seeking relief regarding the impoundment of his vehicle and municipal summonses for driving violations.
- The underlying municipal proceedings involved traffic citations issued to Naraayan for driving without a license, improper plate display, and no liability insurance.
- Naraayan did not appear at a scheduled municipal court hearing related to these summonses.
- He sought to proceed in forma pauperis, asserting inability to pay federal court fees, which the court granted.
- Naraayan's removal to federal court invoked federal question jurisdiction, alleging due process and RICO violations, but the claims arose out of purely local municipal matters.
- The notice of removal was filed well past the statutory 30-day deadline after the municipal action commenced.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| In Forma Pauperis status | N/A | Naraayan cannot pay court fees | Granted—Naraayan sufficiently showed indigence |
| Federal question jurisdiction for removal | N/A | Removal proper, raises federal claims | No federal question exists apparent on the record |
| Timeliness of notice of removal | N/A | Does not address timeliness | Notice was untimely, filed past 30-day limit |
| Federal court review of municipal court orders | N/A | Federal court should review case | District court lacks jurisdiction; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (federal jurisdiction required for removal from state court)
- Taylor v. Supreme Court, [citation="261 F. App'x 399"] (IFP determinations hinge on economic eligibility)
- Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331 (in forma pauperis standard set by Supreme Court)
- Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239 (pro se litigants must follow procedural rules)