The People of the State of California v. Hiramanek

Filing 17

ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS (addressing 16 ). Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 12/8/2014. (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiff,

8
9

ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA
PAUPERIS STATUS

v.

10

ADIL K. HIRAMANEK,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 14-cv-04640-BLF

[Re: ECF 16]

Defendant.

12
13

On October 14, 2014, Defendant Adil Hiramanek (“Defendant”) filed a Notice of

14

Removal, removing criminal case #C1235568 from the Santa Clara County Superior Court to the

15

Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). Not. of Removal, ECF 1. The

16

magistrate judge to whom the case initially was assigned issued an order directing that the case be

17

reassigned to a district judge and recommending that the case be remanded for lack of subject

18

matter jurisdiction. Report and Recommendation at 1, ECF 9. On November 25, 2014, this Court

19

issued an order adopting the recommendation and remanding the case to the Santa Clara County

20

Superior Court. Remand Order, ECF 13. On the same day, Defendant filed a notice of appeal.

21

Not. of Appeal, ECF 14. On December 1, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

22

Circuit issued a referral notice advising that “[t]his matter is referred to the district court for the

23

limited purpose of determining whether in forma pauperis status should continue for this appeal or

24

whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith.” Referral Notice, ECF 16.

25

“An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is

26

not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). An appeal is taken in good faith if it presents at

27

least one issue or claim that is non-frivolous. See Hooker v. Amer. Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092

28

(9th Cir. 2002).

1

As discussed in the Court’s remand order, Defendant’s Notice of Removal was insufficient

2

to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court because it neither presented facts suggesting race

3

discrimination nor identified state statutory or constitutional provisions purporting to command

4

the state courts to ignore federal rights, both of which are required under the statute purportedly

5

authorizing removal, 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). See Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 998 (9th Cir.

6

2006). Because these deficiencies were apparent on the face of the Notice of Removal and are not

7

matters as to which reasonable jurists could differ, this Court concludes that Defendant’s appeal is

8

frivolous and thus not taken in good faith.

9

Accordingly, Defendant’s in forma pauperis status is hereby REVOKED pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The Clerk shall notify Defendant and the United States Court of Appeals for

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

the Ninth Circuit of this ruling as soon as is practicable.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15
16

Dated: December 8, 2014
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2