Olajide v. People of the State of California

Filing 3

ORDER REDISIGNATING CASE AS CIVIL CASE; ORDER REMANDING CASE. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 10/31/12. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/1/2012: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (nah, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
Case4:12-cr-00781-PJH Document3 Filed10/31/12 Page1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 OAKLAND DIVISION 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 RONALD OLAJIDE, No. CR 12-781 PJH 12 ORDER REDESIGNATING CASE AS CIVIL CASE; REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT Petitioner/Defendant, 13 vs. 14 15 16 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent/Plaintiff. / 17 18 This case, which was originally designated as a criminal case by this court's clerk's 19 office, constitutes a petition for removal of a state court criminal prosecution brought 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1), and is actually a civil rights case and should bear a civil 21 case number. Accordingly, the clerk is ORDERED to terminate the criminal case and to 22 reopen the case as a civil case assigned to the same undersigned judge. Once reopened 23 as a civil case, the court REMANDS for the reasons set forth below. 24 Ronald Olajide has filed a notice of removal seeking to remove a misdemeanor 25 criminal prosecution from Alameda County Superior Court. In 2009, Olajide was apparently 26 charged with misdemeanor driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs and with 27 misdemeanor driving while having a 0.08% or higher blood alcohol. 28 Olajide seeks to remove the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1), which provides that: Case4:12-cr-00781-PJH Document3 Filed10/31/12 Page2 of 3 1 2 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: 3 4 (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. 5 To remove a case under § 1443(1), the criminal defendant must meet a two-pronged 6 test. First, “it must appear that the right allegedly denied the removal petitioner arises 7 under a federal law ‘providing for specific civil rights stated in terms of racial equality.’ ” 8 Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 220 (1975) (quoting Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 9 780, 792 (1966)); see also Davis v. Superior Court of California, 464 F.2d 1272 (9th Cir.1972) (explaining that removal jurisdiction under § 1443(1) is specific and extremely 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 narrow; claims must relate to statutes explicitly protecting equal racial civil rights). Second, 12 it must appear “that the removal petitioner is ‘denied or cannot enforce’ the specified 13 federal rights ‘in the courts of the State.’ ” Johnson, 421 U.S. at 220 (citation omitted). This 14 generally requires a showing that a state law or constitutional provision denies the 15 defendant an opportunity to raise a federal right. Id. 16 Olajide’s petition for removal is not particularly comprehensible, and it appears that 17 he is arguing that various state officials, including a police officer, judges, and county 18 clerks, have conspired to deny him his equal civil rights based on his race. Because 19 Olajide has failed to show that state law or the state constitution denies him his ability to 20 raise a federal right, the court finds that on its face the petition lacks merit and that 21 summary remand is appropriate. 22 Additionally, Olajide has failed to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1455 which governs the 23 procedure for removal of state court criminal prosecutions. That statute requires Olajide to 24 attach “a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon such defendant or 25 defendants in such action,” which he has failed to do. See 28 U.S.C. § 1455(a). Failure to 26 do so similarly requires summary remand. Id. at § 1455(b)(4). Moreover, Olajide has not 27 demonstrated that the 2009 misdemeanor charges are pending as required by § 1455(a). 28 2 Case4:12-cr-00781-PJH Document3 Filed10/31/12 Page3 of 3 1 2 3 For these reasons, the court summarily remands the matter to the Alameda County Superior Court. The clerk shall close both the criminal case and newly opened civil case. IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: October 31, 2012 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?