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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?