U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART IV— JURISDICTION AND VENUE › Chapter CHAPTER 89— DISTRICT COURTS; REMOVAL OF CASES FROM STATE COURTS

28 U.S.C. § 1455

Procedure for removal of criminal prosecutions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(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.(Added Pub. L. 112–63, title I, § 103(c), Dec. 7, 2011, 125 Stat. 761.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, referred to in subsec. (a), are set out in the Appendix to this title.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective upon the expiration of the 30-day period beginning on Dec. 7, 2011, and applicable to any action or prosecution commenced on or after such effective date, with provisions for treatment of cases removed to Federal court, see section 105 of Pub. L. 112–63, set out as an Effective Date of 2011 Amendment note under section 1332 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 341 cases (281 in the last 5 years), 2012–2026 · leading case: State of Alabama v. Steven Thomason
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State of Alabama v. Steven Thomason (2017) ca11 · cites it 3× “The district court also determined that 28 U.S.C. § 1455 governed the removal of criminal actions and that Thomason’s notice of removal was untimely under § 1455.”
Pennsylvania v. Brown-Bey (2016) ca3 · cites it 2× “1 Meanwhile, on January 6, 2015, Brown-Bey removed his criminal case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1455 and § 1443, again challenging his state prosecution on federal constitutional grounds, particularly his right to be free from an unreasonable' search and seizure.”
Parrish v. State (2015) texapp · cites it 4× “Removal to Federal Court In his first issue, appellant contends that the judgment of conviction is void because- the trial court lost jurisdiction to issue a judgment when appellant removed the’ case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1455 . Section 1455 authorizes a defendant…”
Bellman v. NXP Semiconductors USA, Inc. (2017) nmd “§ 1446 is amended to cover removal procedures for civil cases only; provisions governing removal of criminal prosecutions have been moved into new 28 U.S.C. § 1455 [ Pub. L. No. 112-63, § 103 (b), (c), 125 Stat.”
Taos County Magistrate Court v. Currier (2015) ca10 · cites it 2× “Under 28 U.S.C. § 1455 (a), criminal defendants must adhere to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in filing a Notice of.”
Williams ex rel. Samayoa v. Board of Regents (2014) nmd “§ 1446 is amended to cover removal procedures for civil cases only; provisions governing removal of criminal prosecutions have been moved into new 28 U.S.C. § 1455 [ Pub.L. No. 112-63, § 103 (b), (c), 125 Stat.”
Gallup Med Flight, LLC v. Builders Trust of New Mexico (2017) nmd “§ 1446 is amended to cover removal procedures for civil cases only; provisions governing removal of criminal, prosecutions have been moved into new 28 U.S.C. § 1455 [ Pub. L. No. 112-63, § 103 (b), (c), 125 Stat.”
In Re: Peter Ingris v. (2015) ca3 · cites it 2× “” 28 U.S.C. § 1455 (b)(4). If Ingris submitted for filing a Notice of Removal of his state criminal prosecutions and Lewis-Walker improperly failed to file it (and we do not find nor imply that she did), we are confident that the failure was due to a misunderstanding of the…”
Lucero v. Ortiz (2015) nmd “§ 1446 is amended to cover removal procedures for civil cases only; provisions governing removal of criminal prosecutions have been moved into new 28 U.S.C. § 1455 [ Pub.L. No. 112-63, § 103 (b), (c), 125 Stat.”
Pledger v. State of Kansas (2017) ca10 “” 28 U.S.C. § 1455 (b)(1). Not every removal order is subject to appellate review.”
State of Georgia v. Jeffrey Clark (2024) ca11 “(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1455 (b)(5)). After considering the evidence, the district court denied removal and remanded to Georgia state court.”
People of the State of California v. Schaupp (2023) caed · cites it 10× “) Defendant 26 purports to remove the criminal action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1455 and 1331. (Id. at 2.) 27 Defendant did not submit a filing fee with her notice of removal but instead filed an application to 28 proceed in forma pauperis.”
Show all 341 citing cases →
— 28 U.S.C. § 1455(a) — 1 case
ADDERLEY v. AUSTIN (2024) flnd
— 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b) — 1 case
Gardner v. Ute Tribal Court of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (2025) utd
— 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(4) — 2 cases
ADDERLEY v. AUSTIN (2024) flnd
State of South Carolina v. Bralyn Jackson (2026) scd
— 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(5) — 1 case
State of Georgia v. Eric A. Heinze (2026) ca11
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.