The People of the State of California v. Davanthoni Lewrence Conners

Filing 8

ORDER by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank remanding case to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case number BA44791 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (shb)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

WESTERN DIVISION

11
12
13

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiff,

14
15
16
17

Case No. LA CV 17-01995-VBF (AFM)
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO
STATE COURT

v.
DAVANTHONI LEWRENCE
CONNERS,
Defendant.

18
19

On March 13, 2017, defendant Conners purported to remove his criminal

20

action, Case No. BA447941, from Los Angeles County Superior Court to this Court

21

by filing a “Notice of Removal” in which he cites 28 U.S.C. §§ 1443 and 1455. See

22

CM/ECF Document (“Doc” 1). Defendant also filed a request to proceed in forma

23

pauperis (Doc 3), which will be denied by separate order in light of the remand.

24

Defendant contends that he is removing a state-court criminal proceeding to

25

this District Court. First, defendant indicates that he is a descendent of two Indian

26

Tribes, which he contends have “original jurisdiction pursuant to” 25 U.S.C.

27

§§ 1911 and 1920. (Doc 1 at 1-2.) The cited statutes, however, pertain solely to

28

jurisdiction over child custody matters and are not relevant herein. Defendant cites

1

no other basis for removal arising from his Native American status.

2

In addition, to support the removal of his state-court criminal proceeding,

3

defendant cites 28 U.S.C. §§ 1443, 1455(a), 1455(b)(2) (Doc 1 at 1, 2, 5), and he

4

argues that he has been deprived of “fundamental rights” during the investigation,

5

arraignment, and preliminary hearing of his criminal matter in state court (id. at 2-

6

4). The documents attached to the Request reflect that a Felony Complaint for an

7

Arrest Warrant was executed on June 28, 2016, charging defendant with various

8

violations of the California Penal Code. (Id. at 6-10).

9
10

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. . . .

It is to be

11

presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of

12

establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.”

13

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (internal

14

citations omitted). Further, the “‘strong presumption’ against removal jurisdiction

15

means that the [removing party] always has the burden of establishing that removal

16

is proper.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).

17

See, e.g., Rancho Horizon, LLC v. Sabanayagam, 2013 WL 12123987, *1 (C.D.

18

Cal. Feb. 28, 2013) (George King, C.J.) (“Defendant’s notice of removal of this

19

state[-]court unlawful detainer action is insufficient to overcome the ‘strong

20

presumption against removal jurisdiction’ and to meet the removing party’s burden

21

of ‘establishing that removal is proper.’”) (quoting Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566, and

22

Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009)). “Because the

23

court applies a presumption against removal jurisdiction, it may deny such

24

jurisdiction ‘if not affirmatively apparent from the record.’” Ley’s v. Lowe’s Home

25

Ctrs, Inc., 601 F. Supp.2d 908, 916 n.10 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 9, 2009) (cites omitted).

26

In addition, “all disputed questions of fact and all ambiguities in the

27

controlling state law must be resolved in favor of remand to state court.” Chen

28

v. Saint Jude Medical, LLC, 2017 WL 1289822, *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2017)
2

1

(Cormac Carney, J.) (citing Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1042).

2

Moreover, the Court has a “duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over

3

the removed action sua sponte, whether the parties [have] raised the issue or not.”

4

United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir.

5

2004). “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks

6

subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”

7

subsection c.

28 U.S.C. § 1447

8
9

When a state-court prosecution is removed, the Court must “examine the

10

notice [of removal] promptly” upon its filing, and “[i]f it clearly appears on the face

11

of the notice and any exhibits annexed thereto that removal should not be permitted,

12

the court shall make an order for summary remand.” 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(4).

13

Further, § 1455 is merely a procedural mechanism for removal of a criminal

14

case; it does not provide any substantive grounds to support removal. Rather, the

15

jurisdictional bases for removal of criminal actions are set forth in 28 U.S.C. §§

16

1442, 1442a and 1443. Sections 1442 and 1442a are inapplicable here because

17

defendant does not allege that he is a federal officer or member of the armed forces.

18

Pursuant to § 1443, any defendant may remove a criminal prosecution to

19

federal court if he seeks to − and, because of state law, cannot − assert a defense to

20

the prosecution based on federal laws protecting equal civil rights. See 28 U.S.C.

21

§ 1443; Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2006). Although

22

defendant alleges that his arrest, arraignment, and detention in connection with the

23

prosecution violated his constitutional rights, a prosecution that “is assertedly a

24

sham, corrupt, or without evidentiary basis does not, standing alone, satisfy the

25

requirements of § 1443(1).” Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 219 (1975);

26

California v. Sandoval, 434 F.2d 635, 636 (9th Cir. 1970) (“[b]ad experiences with

27

the particular court in question will not suffice” for 1443 removal).

28

The Supreme Court has held that removal under § 1443(1) will be permitted
3

1

only if the defendant can satisfy a two-part test. See Johnson, 421 U.S. at 219.

2

First, a defendant “must assert, as a defense to the prosecution, rights that are given

3

to [him] by explicit statutory enactment protecting equal racial civil rights.”

4

Second, he “must assert that the state courts will not enforce that right,” supporting

5

the assertion by reference to a specific state statute or constitutional provision.

6

Patel, 446 F.3d at 998-99 (citing Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 788-92 (1966)).

7
8

Here, defendant cites no state law, whether constitutional or statutory or

9

otherwise, that can be expected to prevent him from enforcing his federal

10

constitutional or statutory civil rights. Accordingly, defendant has failed to

11

show that the state-court criminal proceeding is removable under § 1443. See

12

City of Greenwood, Miss. v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 832 (1966) (rejecting

13

defendants’ argument that they were entitled to remove their criminal misdemeanor

14

proceedings to federal court based on their race and their belief they would be

15

unable to obtain a fair trial in the state court, noting that if this interpretation were

16

to prevail, “every criminal case in every court of every State − on any charge from

17

a five dollar misdemeanor to first-degree murder − would be removable to a federal

18

court upon a petition alleging (1) that the defendant was being prosecuted because

19

of his race and that he was completely innocent of the charge brought against him,

20

or (2) that he would be unable to obtain a fair trial in the state court”).

21
22

For these reasons, the Court finds that defendant has failed to satisfy his

23

burden of establishing this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over his state-court

24

criminal proceeding. Because defendant has failed to establish a basis for removal,

25

the Court lacks jurisdiction, and the case will be remanded to state court.

26
27

ORDER

28

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(4), this matter is summarily remanded
4

1

to the Los Angeles County Superior Court for all further proceedings.

2
3
4
5
6

Dated: Wednesday, April 12, 2017
____________________________
VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK
Senior United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5