# DEGARDEYN

> District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · February 24, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11270809

## Case

- **Full name:** Abram Oliver DeGardeyn v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** February 24, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11270809

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- describing standard of appellate review when no timely and specific objections are filed as limited to review for plain error

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PITTSBURGH DIVISION
ABRAM OLIVER DEGARDEYN, )
)
) Civil Action No. 2:26-cv-00267
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) Senior United States District Judge
) Nora Barry Fischer
COMMONWEALTH OF )
PENNSYLVANIA, ) United States Magistrate Judge
) Christopher B. Brown
)
Respondent. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Christopher B. Brown, United States Magistrate Judge
I. Recommendation
This matter was initiated by the filing of a pro se Notice of Removal filed by
Abram Oliver DeGardeyn. ECF No. 1. The Notice was received without the filing
fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner, Abram Oliver
DeGardeyn, is the subject of criminal proceedings currently pending before the
Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County at Case No. CP-26-CR-0002157-2025.
Id., see also ECF No. 1-1. The Notice has been reviewed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1455(b)(4). For the reasons set forth below, it is recommended the matter be
summarily remanded to the state courts for further proceedings.
II. Report
A. Background
Based on the notice and attached exhibits, as well as the publicly available
state court docket, to which the Court takes judicial notice, DeGardeyn was charged
by Information with two misdemeanor counts of Stalking – Repeatedly Commit Acts
to Cause Fear, occurring on July 21, 2025, in violation of 18 P.S. § 2709.1 §§ A1. See
publicly available docket at https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/Report/
CpDocketSheet?docketNumber=CP-26-CR-0002157-2025. On January 6, 2026, the

Fayette County Public Defender’s Office entered an appearance for DeGardeyn and
waived formal arraignment. That same day, a surety bond in the security amount
of $10,000.00 was posted on DeGardeyn’s behalf. On January 12, 2026, Judge
Nancy D. Vernon issued an Amended Order for Competency Evaluation.
DeGardeyn claims Fayette County Court of Common Pleas has denied his
rights under the United States Constitution and the Americans with Disabilities

Act, in the following respects:
A. Violation of the 14th Amendment (Due Process)
and Pa.R.Crim.P. 543: The magisterial District Court
docket for December 8, 2025, explicitly confirms that the
preliminary hearing was held in absentia while the
Petitioner was not present and had not provided a waiver.
This “Held for Court” disposition is a structural error that
invalidates the transfer of jurisdiction to the Court of
Common Pleas.

B. Obstruction of Self-Representation (6th
amendment): The state court has consistently ignored
Petitioner’s dismissal of the Public Defender’s Office and
his assertion of pro se status. By continuing to serve and
recognize “shadow counsel” against Petitioner’s express
refusal, the court has constructively abandoned the
Petitioner's right to be heard and to conduct his own
defense.

C. Weaponized Competency and ADA Retaliation
(42 U.S.C. § 12203): The state court, under Judge Nancy
D. Vernon, has issued multiple “Amended Orders for
Competency Examination” without a predicate motion,
hearing, or evidence. These orders are being utilized as a
retaliatory mechanism to suppress the Petitioner's filings
regarding ADA Title II auxiliary aids and to suspend his
civil rights under the pretext of mental health evaluation.

ECF No. 1 at 2.

B. Discussion
Title 28, United States Code, section 1455, sets out the procedure for removal
of criminal prosecutions from state court to federal court. It provides as follows:
(a) Notice of removal. -- A defendant or defendants
desiring to remove any criminal prosecution from a State
court shall file in the district court of the United States
for the district and division within which such prosecution
is pending a notice of removal signed pursuant to Rule 11
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and containing a
short and plain statement of the grounds for removal,
together with a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders
served upon such defendant or defendants in such action.
(b) Requirements. -- (1) A notice of removal of a
criminal prosecution shall be filed not later than 30 days
after the arraignment in the State court, or at any time
before trial, whichever is earlier, except that for good
cause shown the United States district court may enter an
order granting the defendant or defendants leave to file
the notice at a later time.
(2) A notice of removal of a criminal prosecution shall
include all grounds for such removal. A failure to state
grounds that exist at the time of the filing of the notice
shall constitute a waiver of such grounds, and a second
notice may be filed only on grounds not existing at the
time of the original notice. For good cause shown, the
United States district court may grant relief from the
limitations of this paragraph.
(3) The filing of a notice of removal of a criminal
prosecution shall not prevent the State court in which
such prosecution is pending from proceeding further,
except that a judgment of conviction shall not be entered
unless the prosecution is first remanded.
(4) The 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.
(5) If the United States district court does not order the
summary remand of such prosecution, it shall order an
evidentiary hearing to be held promptly and, after such
hearing, shall make such disposition of the prosecution as
justice shall require. If the United States district court
determines that removal shall be permitted, it shall so
notify the State court in which prosecution is pending,
which shall proceed no further.
(c) Writ of habeas corpus.—If the defendant or
defendants are in actual custody on process issued by the
State court, the district court shall issue its writ of habeas
corpus, and the marshal shall thereupon take such
defendant or defendants into the marshal's custody and
deliver a copy of the writ to the clerk of such State court.
28 U.S.C. § 1455.
The substantive grounds for removal of a criminal prosecution are set out in
28 U.S.C. §§ 1442, 1442a, and 1443. See Pennsylvania v. Williams, No. 3:15-CV-
1022, 2015 WL 3440273, at *1 (M.D. Pa. May 27, 2015). Section 1442 allows for
removal of criminal prosecutions in certain instances against federal officers or
agencies, and section 1442a allows for removal of criminal prosecutions in certain
instances against members of the armed forces. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442 and 1442a.
Section 1443 allows for removal in two situations. Section 1443(1) authorizes
the removal of a state law civil or criminal action “[a]gainst 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). Under this provision, “a state court
defendant must demonstrate both (1) that he is being deprived of rights guaranteed
by a federal law ‘providing for. . . equal civil rights’; and (2) that he is ‘denied or
cannot enforce’ that right in the courts’ of the state.” Davis v. Glanton, 107 F.3d
1044, 1047 (3d Cir. 1997) (quoting Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 788 (1966)).

Under the first requirement, the defendant must allege a deprivation of
rights guaranteed by a federal law “providing for specific civil rights stated in terms
of racial equality.” Id. Under the second requirement, removal is available where
the defendant's federal civil rights would “inevitably be denied by the very act of

being brought to trial in state court.” New Jersey v. Thomas, 344 F. App'x 727, 728
(3d Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (quoting Davis, 107 F.3d at 1047, 1049) (citations
omitted).
Section 1443(2) permits removal of a state law civil or criminal action “[f]or
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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1443(2). This provision “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[,]” or upon state officers who refuse to enforce racially discriminatory laws.
City of Greenwood, Miss. v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 824 (1966).

Here, DeGardeyn satisfies none of the substantive criteria for removal of a
criminal prosecution. He is not a federal officer, a state officer, or a member of the
armed forces, leaving only § 1443(1) as a possible substantive ground for removal.
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442, 1442a, 1443(2).
As the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has summarized,
the removal permitted by 28 U.S.C. § 1443[(1)] is narrow.
. . . Where the party seeking removal asserts the violation
of his constitutional rights phrased in terms of general
rights applicable to all citizens, rather than provisions
couched in the specific language of racial equality, there is
no basis for removal of an action to federal court. Thus, a
defendant seeking to remove a case under § 1443(1) must
demonstrate that the rights claimed arise under a
provision of the Constitution or federal law specifically
designed to promote racial equality, and must also
specifically allege that he has been denied or cannot
enforce in the state court the right that was created by
the civil rights law under which he seeks protection. The
allegation of illegal or corrupt acts of individual state
officials that might be corrected by the state judiciary, or
the mere possibility of an unfair trial in state court, will
not justify removal to the federal court under § 1443(1).
Pennsylvania v. Brown-Bey, 637 F. App'x 686, 688 (3d Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (citing
Peacock, 384 U.S. at 829–30; Rachel, 384 U.S. at 792; Davis, 107 F.3d at 1047)
(emphasis added).
Although DeGardeyn asserts his Fourteenth and Sixth amendment rights
under the Constitution and his rights under the ADA have been violated, he has not
demonstrated his claims arise under a provision of the Constitution or federal law
specially designed to promote racial equality. As our Court of Appeals noted, “[t]he
allegation of illegal or corrupt acts of individual state officials that might be
corrected by the state judiciary, . . . will not justify removal to the federal court
under § 1443(1).” Brown-Bey, 637 . App’x at 688.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that:
1. This matter be summarily REMANDED forthwith to the Court of Common
Pleas of Fayette County where it is docketed as Commonwealth v. Abram Oliver
Degardeyn, at Case No. CP-26-CR-0002157-2025; and

2. The Clerk be directed to mark this case as CLOSED.

DeGardeyn is permitted to file written specific Objections to this Report and
Recommendation to the assigned United States District Judge. In accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2), and LCvR 72.D.2, DeGardeyn, must file
written objections, if any, to this Report and Recommendation by March 13, 2026.

DeGardeyn is cautioned that failure to file Objections within this timeframe “will
waive the right to appeal.” Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir.
2011)(quoting Siers v. Morrash, 700 F.2d 113, 116 (3d Cir. 1983). See also EEOC v.
City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (describing standard of
appellate review when no timely and specific objections are filed as limited to
review for plain error).

DATED this 24th day of February, 2026.

BY THE COURT:

s/Christopher B. Brown
Christopher B. Brown
United States Magistrate Judge
cc: ABRAM OLIVER DEGARDEYN
511 Prospect Street EXT
Point Marion, PA 15474
(via U.S. First Class Mail)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11270809. Public record. Not legal advice.