The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ALVIN D. DAVISTON, Jr., :
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 23-CV-220
:
COMMONWEALTH OF :
PENNSYLVANIA, et al., :
Defendants. :
MEMORANDUM
SÁNCHEZ, C.J. JANUARY 27, 2023
Alvin D. Daviston, Jr., a pro se litigant who seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, filed a
pleading with the Court that seeks two distinct forms of relief. Daviston asks for money
damages from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Delaware County Assistant District Attorney
E. A. Schneider, and Detective John A. Hoffner.1 But while asking for money damages,
Daviston labeled his pleading a “Notice of Removal and Counter Suit,” presumably to remove to
federal court the criminal charges lodged against him in the Delaware County Court of Common
Pleas, see Commonwealth v. Daviston, CP-23-CR-368-2021 (C.P. Delaware). He also seeks to
have those charges dismissed. Because the attempt at removal is improper, and this Court thus
lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the charges, the criminal case will be remanded; the claims
presented in the civil action will be dismissed.
1 Hoffner’s name is also spelled as “Hoffman.” The Court will use the “Hoffner”
spelling.
I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS2
Daviston claims “civil rights violations” as a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction and
alleges, that on September 14, 2020, Defendant Hoffner visited him at his home in Chester
Township to discuss a private criminal complaint lodged against Daviston by an “‘alleged
victim’ [identified in the pleading by the initials AS] who backed out of a [real estate] agreement
without proper notice.” (Compl. at 3-4.) According to Daviston, Hoffner expressed reservations
about the criminal complaint “because this was a CIVIL matter and should be resolved in CIVIL
COURT,” as provided in the real estate agreement. (Id. at 4 (capitalization in original).)
Hoffner never asked for a copy of the paperwork concerning the transaction for the purchase of a
property at 1009 Central Avenue in Chester, Pennsylvania. (Id. at 5; see also id. at 12-15.)
Daviston appears to concede that the transaction was structured as a straw purchase by another
individual named John Tompkins, Jr. since AS did not have sufficient credit scores or work
history to qualify for a mortgage. (Id. at 5 & 12.)
Attached to the Complaint is a “Standard Agreement for the Sale of Real Estate” listing
John Tompkins, Jr. as the purchaser of the property and Alvin D. Daviston, Jr. as the realtor
representing both the buyer and seller. (Id. at 12-15.) Daviston also attached a copy of a
criminal complaint attested to by Defendant Hoffner naming Daviston as the criminal defendant.
(Id. at 16-18.) In his Affidavit of Probable Cause, Hoffner averred that, as part of the transaction
“JT” – seemingly a reference to Tompkins – wired $20,000 to Daviston’s bank account to be
placed in escrow. (Id. at 19.) Later, AS presented Daviston with a cashier’s check in the amount
2 The allegations are taken from Daviston’s Complaint (ECF No. 1). The pleading
consists of the Court’s generic form complaint made available for use by pro se litigants, as well
as attached handwritten pages and exhibits. The Court adopts the pagination assigned by the
CM/ECF docketing system to the entire pleading.
of $5,000 to be placed in escrow. (Id.) After an over two-year delay, AS purchased the property
using a different broker. (Id.) AS later hired an attorney who sent Daviston letters demanding
return of the $25,000. (Id.) Hoffner secured a search warrant for Daviston’s bank records and
allegedly determined that, in period of August to October 2015 while the transaction was still
pending, Daviston withdrew a total of $19,933.22 from the account into which the original
$20,000 had been wired, leaving the account with a negative balance. (Id. at 20.) The cashier’s
check for the additional $5,000 toward the transaction, was never deposited. Rather, Hoffner
determined that Daviston had cashed the check. (Id.)
A review of public records reveals that Daviston is awaiting trial in the Delaware County
Court of Common Pleas on six counts of theft by deception and two counts of receiving stolen
property. See Commonwealth v. Daviston, CP-23-CR-0000368-2021 (C.P. Delaware). The
arresting officer listed on the docket is Defendant Hoffner and Defendant Schneider is listed as
the Assistant District Attorney representing the Commonwealth. Daviston was arraigned on
those charges on September 17, 2020. Commonwealth v. Daviston, MJ-32122-CR-0000293-
2020 (M.C. Delaware) The charges remain pending.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court grants Daviston leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) requires the Court to dismiss the Complaint if it fails to state a claim. Whether
a complaint fails to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard
applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), see Tourscher
v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999), which requires the Court to determine whether
the complaint contains “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted); Talley v.
Wetzel, 15 F.4th 275, 286 n.7 (3d Cir. 2021). “At this early stage of the litigation,’ ‘[the Court
will] accept the facts alleged in [the pro se] complaint as true,’ ‘draw[] all reasonable inferences
in [the plaintiff’s] favor,’ and ‘ask only whether [that] complaint, liberally construed, . . .
contains facts sufficient to state a plausible [] claim.’” Shorter v. United States, 12 F.4th 366,
374 (3d Cir. 2021) (quoting Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 774, 782 (7th Cir. 2015)).
Conclusory allegations do not suffice. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. As Daviston is proceeding pro se,
the Court construes his allegations liberally. Vogt v. Wetzel, 8 F.4th 182, 185 (3d Cir. 2021)
(citing Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 244-45 (3d Cir. 2013)).
III. DISCUSSION
A. Removal of Daviston’s Criminal Case
State court criminal matters are removable to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443,
which provides as follows:
Any of the following civil actions or criminal prosecutions,
commenced in State court may be removed by the defendant to the
district court of the United States for the district and division
embracing the place wherein it is pending:
(1) 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;
(2) for any act under color of authority derived from any law
providing for equal rights, or for refusing to do any act on the
ground that it would be inconsistent with such law.3
3 The Supreme Court has directed that “the second subsection of § 1443 confers a privilege of
removal only upon federal officers or agents and those authorized to act with or for them in
affirmatively executing duties under any federal law providing for equal civil rights.” City of
Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 824 (1966). Daviston’s allegations do not suggest that he
falls into this category, and, therefore, § 1443(2) does not provide a basis for removal of this
case.
Id. The procedures governing removal of criminal matters from state court are set forth in 28
U.S.C. § 1455. Section 1455 requires, inter alia, that a notice of removal be filed no later than
30 days after the arraignment in state court, that the notice of removal contain a short and plain
statement of the grounds for removal, and that a copy of all process, pleadings and orders served
upon the removing defendant be included with the notice of removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1455(a),
(b)(1). Section 1455 further requires that “[t]he United States district court in which such notice
is filed shall examine the notice promptly. If it clearly appears on the face of the notice and any
exhibits annexed thereto that removal should not be permitted, the court shall make an order for
summary remand.” 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(4).
The Supreme Court has determined that
A removal petition under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) must satisfy a two-
pronged test. First, it must appear that the right allegedly denied
the removal petitioner arises under a federal law providing for
specific civil rights stated in terms of racial equality. . . . Second, it
must appear in accordance with the provisions of § 1443(1), that
the removal petitioner is denied or cannot enforce the specified
federal rights in the courts of [the] State.
Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 219 (1975) (internal citations and quotation marks
omitted). Under the first prong of the test, “[c]laims that prosecution and conviction will violate
rights under constitutional or statutory provisions of general applicability or under statutes not
protecting against racial discrimination will not suffice.” Id.; see also Pennsylvania v. Carroll,
764 F. App’x 134, 135 (3d Cir. 2019) (“[r]emoval must be based upon a law providing for
specific civil rights stated in terms of racial equality, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”)
Thus, a claim by a removal petitioner that he or she “will be denied due process of law because
the criminal law under which he is being prosecuted is allegedly vague or that the prosecution is
assertedly a sham, corrupt, or without evidentiary basis does not, standing alone, satisfy the
requirements of § 1443(a).” Id. The second prong of the test “normally requires that the denial
be manifest in a formal expression of state law, such as a state legislative or constitutional
provisions, rather than a denial first made manifest at the trial of the case.” Id.
So, “removal is not warranted by an assertion that a denial of rights of equality may take
place and go uncorrected at trial.” Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 800 (1966). Instead,
“[r]emoval is warranted only if it can be predicted by reference to a law of general application
that the defendant will be denied or cannot enforce the specified federal rights in state courts. A
state statute authorizing the denial affords an ample basis for such a prediction.” Id. However, it
is generally to be expected that “the protection of federal constitutional or statutory rights [can]
be effected in the pending state proceedings.” Johnson, 421 U.S. at 219-20.
Daviston’s attempt to remove his state criminal charges to this Court is defective. First, it
was not removed within 30 days of the date on which Daviston was arraigned in state court as
required by § 1455. Second, Daviston did not include a short and plain statement of the grounds
for removal, and he did not file a copy of all process, pleadings and orders served upon him, as
required by §§ 1455(a) and (b)(1). Moreover, Daviston’s lone allegation that he has suffered a
“civil rights violation” is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of § 1443(a)(1). For these
reasons, Daviston’s criminal case will be remanded to the Delaware County Court of Common
Pleas.
B. Civil Rights Claims
To the extent Daviston seeks money damages, the Court construes his pleading as raising
claims for violation of his civil rights. The vehicle by which federal constitutional claims may
be brought in federal court is 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must
show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.”
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
1. Claim Against the Commonwealth
Daviston names the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as a Defendant. States are not
considered “persons” for purposes of § 1983. See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S.
58, 65-66 (1989). Furthermore, the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a state and its
agencies in federal court that seek monetary damages. See Pennhurst State Sch. And Hosp. v.
Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99-100 (1984); A.W. v. Jersey City Public Schs., 341 F.3d 234, 238 (3d
Cir. 2003). The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has not waived that immunity. See 42 Pa.
Cons. Stat. § 8521(b). Accordingly, the claim for money damages Daviston seeks to assert
against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania must be dismissed.
2. Claims Against ADA Schneider
Daviston also seeks to assert a claim against Delaware County Assistant District Attorney
E. A. Schneider, presumably based on her actions taken as the prosecutor assigned to Daviston’s
criminal case. This claim must also be dismissed. Prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity
from liability under § 1983 for acts that are “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the
criminal process” such as “initiating a prosecution and . . . presenting the State’s case.” Imbler v.
Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31 (1976). Absolute immunity extends to the decision to initiate a
prosecution, Imbler, 424 U.S. at 431, including “soliciting false testimony from witnesses in
grand jury proceedings and probable cause hearings,” Kulwicki v. Dawson, 969 F.2d 1454, 1465
(3d Cir. 1992), presenting a state’s case at trial, Imbler, 424 U.S. at 431, and appearing before a
judge to present evidence. Fogle v. Sokol, 957 F.3d 148, 160 (3d Cir. 2020). Since the only
apparent basis for naming Schneider as a Defendant is her actions in her role as the prosecutor in
Daviston’s criminal case, she is absolutely immune from any claim for money damages.
3. Claim Against Defendant Hoffner
Finally, Daviston asserts a claim for money damages against Defendant Hoffner. While
not entirely clear, the claim presumably is a malicious prosecution claim based upon Hoffner’s
involvement in initiating Daviston’s criminal charges. The malicious prosecution claim against
Hoffner is not plausible.4
To allege a plausible Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim, a plaintiff must
assert: “‘(1) the defendant initiated a criminal proceeding; (2) the criminal proceeding ended in
his favor; (3) the defendant initiated the proceeding without probable cause; (4) the defendant
acted maliciously or for a purpose other than bringing the plaintiff to justice; and (5) the plaintiff
suffered deprivation of liberty consistent with the concept of seizure as a consequence of a legal
proceeding.’” Curry v. Yachera, 835 F.3d 373, 379 (3d Cir. 2016) (quoting Johnson v. Knorr,
477 F.3d 75, 82 (3d Cir. 2007)). Daviston’s criminal charges remain pending. Thus, they have
not “ended in his favor.” If the criminal proceeding ever does end in Daviston’s favor, either by
an acquittal or if a conviction is later overturned, his malicious prosecution claim against
4 To the extent Daviston intended to raise any non-malicious prosecution Fourth
Amendment claim based on his arrest or the investigation leading to his arrest, those claims are
time-barred. Daviston was arrested no later than September 17, 2020, the date he was arraigned
on the charges. The timeliness of a § 1983 claim is governed by the limitations period applicable
to personal injury actions of the state where the cause of action arose. Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d
626, 634 (3d Cir. 2009). The Pennsylvania statute of limitations for a personal injury action is
two years. Id. at 634 (citing 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524(2)). Thus, the limitations period
applicable to Daviston’s § 1983 claims is two years. Daviston filed his pleading on January 17,
2023. Any claims other than the yet-to-accrue malicious prosecution claim that are related to the
investigation and arrest are time-barred because those claims accrued more than two-years prior
to the start of this case.
Defendant Hoffner would accrue at that time. Curry, 835 F.3d at 379 (“[T]he statute of
limitations begins to accrue when the termination of criminal proceedings becomes favorable;
that is, when ‘the conviction or sentence is reversed, expunged, invalidated, or impugned by the
grant of a writ of habeas corpus.’” (quoting Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 489 (1994))).
Accordingly, the unaccrued malicious prosecution claim against Hoffner is dismissed without
prejudice.
IV. CONCLUSION
Daviston’s criminal case will be remanded to the Delaware County Court of Common
Pleas. His civil claims against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Assistant District
Attorney E. A. Schneider will be dismissed with prejudice. His malicious prosecution claim
against Defendant Hoffner will be dismissed without prejudice. Daviston may reassert that claim
in a new civil action if his criminal case is finally resolved in his favor.
An appropriate Order follows.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Juan R. Sánchez
JUAN R. SÁNCHEZ, C.J.