KUBS v. THE COUNTY OF MORRIS
2:24-cv-07153
| D.N.J. | Jun 4, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Kubs, the defendant in a New Jersey state criminal case, sought to remove his prosecution to federal court, citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 & 1446 (removal statutes).
- Plaintiff is facing state criminal charges for unlawful possession of an assault firearm and large capacity magazines.
- Multiple motions and amended notices of removal were filed by Plaintiff, along with related complaints naming various state and local officials and agencies as defendants.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the removal and related complaints; Plaintiff did not respond to those motions.
- The federal court considered whether it had subject matter jurisdiction and whether removal was proper, characterizing the request as an attempted civil rights removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1).
- The Court ultimately denied removal and remanded the matter, holding no basis for federal jurisdiction existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 & 1446 allow removal of state criminal prosecution to federal court? | Kubs claims these sections allow removal of his state criminal case due to alleged constitutional violations. | Defendants argue these are civil-only statutes, not criminal, so no grounds for removal exist. | Statutes apply only to civil actions; removal improper for criminal case. |
| Can removal be based on alleged violations of constitutional rights (e.g., due process)? | Kubs alleges various constitutional violations and conspiracy by state actors. | Defendants argue such allegations are insufficient for § 1443(1) removal, which is limited to equal civil rights based on race. | § 1443(1) only covers violations of rights stated in terms of racial equality, not general constitutional claims; Plaintiff's claims do not qualify. |
| Can federal court intervene in ongoing state criminal proceedings absent clear denial of federally-guaranteed equal rights? | Kubs seeks federal intervention to halt state prosecution and release him. | Defendants emphasize strong judicial policy against federal interference in state prosecutions unless extraordinary requirements met. | No extraordinary circumstances shown; no manifest state law denying rights; federal intervention not permitted. |
| Are Defendants' motions to dismiss moot following remand for lack of jurisdiction? | (Not addressed by Kubs) | Defendants move to dismiss as case is not properly before federal court. | Motions to dismiss are moot in light of remand for lack of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Manypenny, 451 U.S. 232 (federal courts should avoid interfering with state criminal proceedings; removal from state criminal court is strictly limited)
- Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780 (removal under § 1443(1) only protects rights specifically stated in terms of racial equality)
- Peacock v. City of Greenwood, 384 U.S. 808 (to remove under § 1443(1), party must show denial of federal rights in state court under explicit state provision)
- Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592 (federal courts must respect state court processes and not intervene barring rare exceptions)