Marr Sanchez & Associates v. Mazariegos

Filing 4

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 3/21/17. Show Cause Response due by 4/7/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MARR SANCHEZ & ASSOCIATES, 8 Plaintiff, 9 10 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 17-cv-01470-JSW ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF JURISIDICTION v. CLAUDIA MAZARIEGOS, Re: Dkt. No. 1 Defendant. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 On March 17, 2017, Defendant, acting pro se, filed a Notice of Removal, citing 28 U.S.C. section 1443(1) as the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction. Section 1443(1) provides: [a]ny 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[.] The Complaint attached to Defendant’s notice of removal is for an unlawful detainer action 20 in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda. A party seeking to remove a case 21 pursuant to Section 1443(1) must satisfy a two-part test. See Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 22 996, 999 (9th Cir. 2006). The first requirement is that a petitioner “‘must assert, as a defense to 23 the prosecution, rights that are given to them by explicit statutory enactment protecting equal 24 racial civil rights.’” Id. (quoting California v. Sandoval, 434 F.2d 635, 636 (9th Cir. 1970). The 25 second requirement is that a petitioner “‘must assert that the state courts will not enforce that right, 26 and that allegation must be supported by reference to a state statute or a constitutional provision 27 that purports to command the state courts to ignore the federal rights.’” Id. (quoting Sandoval, 28 434 F.2d at 636). 1 Apart from Defendant’s conclu fr usory assertio that jurisd on diction exist under Sect ts tion 1443(1) ), 2 the are no fac from whi the Cour can discern this case fa within th scope of S ere cts ich rt n alls he Section 3 144 43(1). See, e.g., Ariza v. Skinner, No 17-cv-005 e . o. 546-DMR, 2 2017 WL 939019, at *2-*3 (N.D. 4 Cal. Feb. 16, 2017), report and recomm t mendation a dopted by 20 WL 929 017 9561 (N.D. C Mar. 9, Cal. 5 201 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Vann No. 13-cv 17); F N n, v-01148-YGR 2013 WL 1856711, a *4 (N.D. R, L at 6 Cal. May 2, 20 013) (“Simila to 28 U.S. section 1 ar .C. 1343, section 1443(1) wi not provid n ill de 7 jurisdiction wh allegatio of discrim here ons mination are conclusory and lacking factual bas e y g sis.”). 8 9 Accord dingly, Defen ndant is HER REBY ORDE ERED TO S SHOW CAU why the Court USE e ould not rem mand this case for lack of jurisdiction Defendan response to this Orde to Show f n. nt’s e er sho Cau shall be due by Apri 7, 2011. Unless the Court orders o use il U otherwise, no response f from 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Pla aintiff is requ uired. 12 The Co advises Defendant th that a Ha ourt D hat andbook for Pro Se Litig gants, which contains 13 hel lpful informa ation about proceeding without an at p w ttorney, is av vailable thro ough the Cou urt’s website e 14 or in the Clerk’s office. De i efendant also may seek a o assistance fr rom the Lega Help Cent al ter. 15 De efendant may call the Leg Help Cen at 415-7 y gal nter 782-8982 or sign up on t 15th Floo of the San the or n 16 Fra ancisco Cour rthouse, Roo 2796, or on the 4th F om Floor of the O Oakland Cou urthouse, Ro oom 470S, 17 for a free appoi r intment with an attorney who may b able to pro h y be ovide basic l legal help, b not legal but 18 rep presentation. 19 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDER S RED. Da ated: March 21, 2017 ___ __________ ___________ __________ ________ JEF FFREY S. W WHITE Un nited States D District Judg ge 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?