Alvarez v. People of the State of California

Filing 16

ORDER REMANDING CASE. (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2010) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/24/2010: # 1 Envelope) (tf, COURT STAFF).

Alvarez v. People of the State of California

Doc. 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. ENRIQUE SOLIS ALVAREZ, Defendant. / PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff, No. C 10-02748 SI ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO MARIN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On July 9, 2010, the Court issued an order directing defendant Enrique Solis Alvarez to show cause why this action should not be remanded back to the Superior Court for the County of Marin for lack of federal jurisdiction. In that order, the Court noted that although Mr. Solis Alvarez purported to remove his state criminal case to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1443, he had failed to identify how removal under that provision was proper or to set forth any basis for federal jurisdiction over this action. In his response to the Order to Show Cause, Mr. Solis Alvarez fails to explain why removal was proper or this Court has jurisdiction. He argues that the Marin County District Attorney has failed to provide him with a bill of particulars detailing the charges against him, that the state court lacks jurisdiction over him, and that he will be deprived of his First Amendment rights and his right to trial by jury in state court because the state trial judge has refused to permit him to be represented by a nonattorney friend or to proceed pro se without undergoing a competency hearing. Resolution of Mr. Solis Alvarez's first argument, regarding the bill of particulars, is within the discretion of the state court. Neither that argument, nor his unsupported second argument regarding the state court's supposed lack of jurisdiction, provides a basis for removal to this Court. Mr. Solis Alvarez's First Amendment and jury trial arguments also do not justify removal. The Court has already

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

held that Mr. Solis Alvarez's contentions with respect to self-representation are insufficient to support removal, and Mr. Solis Alvarez has failed to identify the source of any federal right to be represented in court by a non-attorney friend.1 For the foregoing reasons, this action is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court for the County of Marin for lack of federal jurisdiction. The clerk is directed to close the case and Mr. Solis Alvarez is instructed that no further filings will be accepted in this closed action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 21, 2010

SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge

Additionally, it is apparent to the Court that Mr. Solis Alvarez's filings have been drafted by his "non-attorney friend," William Henshall. The Court is well-acquainted with Mr. Henshall, who filed a series of non-meritorious actions in this Court between 2007 and 2009 and was eventually declared a vexatious litigant in December 2009. See Henshall v. Central Parking, Inc., No. 09-4481 SI (Docket No. 45). Since the vexatious litigant order was entered, Mr. Henshall has ghostwritten pleadings in at least one other case of which the Court is aware, Lopez v. HMS Host, No. 09-4930 SI. 2

1