Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00382/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00382-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

State of Arizona, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Kennon Simington, Jr., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-13-0382-TUC-DCB-DTF

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

On May 28, 2013, Defendant Kennon Simington, Jr. filed a Notice of Removal to

United States District Court Under 28 U.S.C. § 1442a Members of Armed Forces. (Doc. 1.)

Defendant simultaneously filed an Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs.

(Doc. 2.) Pursuant to the Rules of Practice in this Court, the matter was assigned to

Magistrate Judge Ferraro for a report and recommendation. (Doc. 12.) The Magistrate Judge

recommends the District Court, after its independent review of the record, enter an order

remanding this matter to superior court.

ANALYSIS

As an initial matter, Simington failed to provide this Court with a copy of all

pleadings and other documents filed with the state court as required by LRCiv 3.6(b).

However, based on the state court case number (CR 10004977), review of the Tucson City

Court docket, the fact that Plaintiff is the State of Arizona, and the removal statute cited by

Simington, it is evident that he is attempting to remove a criminal prosecution brought

against him in state court.

Case 4:13-cv-00382-DCB-DTF Document 13 Filed 09/18/13 Page 1 of 3
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

- 2 -

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,” bounded by the power authorized

by the Constitution or statute. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. v. America, 511 U.S. 375,

377 (1994). Courts strictly construe removal statutes against removal, rejecting jurisdiction

if there is any doubt about the right to remove. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th

Cir. 1992). “The ‘strong presumption’ against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant

always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Id.

The Court reviews jurisdiction here because it has a duty to confirm jurisdiction sua

sponte regardless of whether it is raised by the parties. United Investors Life Ins Co. v.

Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). Simington seeks removal

jurisdiction based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1442a, which provides:

A civil or criminal prosecution in a court of a State of the United States against

a member of the armed forces of the United States on account of an act done

under color of his office or status, or in respect to which he claims any right,

title, or authority under a law of the United States respecting the armed forces

thereof, or under the law of war, may at any time before the trial or final

hearing thereof be removed for trial into the district court of the United States

for the district where it is pending in the manner prescribed by law, and it shall

thereupon be entered on the docket of the district court, which shall proceed

as if the cause had been originally commenced therein and shall have full

power to hear and determine the cause.

First, other than asserting that he was on active duty at the time of the incident, Simington

does not assert that the prosecution was based on actions by him “under color of his office

or status.” Second, review of the Tucson City Court docket reveals that the underlying

criminal matter that Simington seeks to remove was disposed of by the city court and

appealed to the Superior Court (which dismissed the appeal). The statute allows removal only

prior to trial or final hearing, which is long expired in Simington’s criminal matter. For both

of these reasons, Simington has not overcome the presumption against removal and met his

burden to establish jurisdiction under this statute.

Further, Simington’s Notice of Removal of a criminal action is actually styled as a

civil complaint alleging violations of his civil rights by state and city entities, from whom he

seeks damages. To the extent Simington seeks to act as a plaintiff in a civil action, he has no

right to remove the matter to this Court.

Case 4:13-cv-00382-DCB-DTF Document 13 Filed 09/18/13 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

RECOMMENDATION

The Magistrate Judge recommends the District Court, after its independent review of

the record, enter an order REMANDING this action to the Pima County Superior Court and

DENYING AS MOOT the Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), any party may serve and file

written objections within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the Report and

Recommendation. A party may respond to the other party’s objections within fourteen days.

No reply brief shall be filed on objections unless leave is granted by the district court. If

objections are not timely filed, they may be deemed waived.

DATED this 18th day of September, 2013.

Case 4:13-cv-00382-DCB-DTF Document 13 Filed 09/18/13 Page 3 of 3