City of Santa Rosa et al v. Patel et al

Filing 9

ORDER REMANDING CASE to the California Superior Court for the County of Sonoma. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 7/24/2007. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/24/2007)

Download PDF
City of Santa Rosa et al v. Patel et al Doc. 9 Case 3:07-cv-03528-MMC Document 9 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The instant action was removed to federal court on July 6, 2007 and reassigned to the undersigned on July 20, 2007. Defendants purport to remove the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1443, which, in relevant part, provides: "Any of the following civil actions or criminal prosecutions, commenced in a 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." See 28 U.S.C. 1443(1). A petition for removal under 1443(1) must satisfy a two-part test. See Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 998 (9th Cir. 2006). "First, the petitioners must assert, as a defense to the prosecution, rights that are given to them by explicit statutory enactment United States District Court CITY OF SANTA ROSA. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiffs, v. RAMAN D. PATEL, et al., Defendants. / No. C-07-3528 MMC ORDER REMANDING ACTION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:07-cv-03528-MMC Document 9 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 2 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 protecting equal racial civil rights." Id. at 999 (internal quotation and citation omitted). "Second, petitioners must assert that the state courts will not enforce that right, and that allegation must be supported by reference to a state statute or constitutional provision that purports to command the state courts to ignore federal rights." Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). Although defendants contend the instant action is being prosecuted against them because of their race in violation of their rights under 42 U.S.C. 1981 and 1982 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, (see Notice of Removal 7, 12), they do not, and cannot, point to any provision of California law "that purports to command the state courts to ignore federal rights." Accordingly, the instant action is hereby REMANDED to the California Superior Court for the County of Sonoma. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 24, 2007 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge 2

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?