Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00673/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00673-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PEOPLE OF STATE OF )

CALIFORNIA, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff/ )

Respondent, )

)

vs. )

)

)

LAWRENCE CARDOZA, )

)

)

Defendant/ )

Petitioner. )

)

)

No. CV-F-10-673 OWW/GSA

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S

PETITION FOR REMOVAL AND

REMANDING ACTION TO STATE

COURT

On April 1, 2010, Petitioner Lawrence Cardoza, the defendant

in the criminal action in the Kings County Superior Court, Nos.

07 CM 7118 and 09 CM 2771, filed a Petition for Removal of the

criminal actions to this Court.

28 U.S.C. § 1443 provides in pertinent part that a criminal

action may be removed by the defendant

(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

1

Case 1:10-cv-00673-OWW -GSA Document 2 Filed 05/03/10 Page 1 of 4
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

States, or of all persons within the

jurisdiction thereof;

(2) For any act under color of authority

derived from any law providing for equal

rights, or for refusing to do any act on the

ground that it would be inconsistent with

such law.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1),

A notice of removal of a criminal prosecution

shall be filed not later than thirty days

after the arraignment in State Court, or at

any time before trial, whichever is earlier,

except that for good cause shown the United

States district court may enter an order

granting the defendant ... leave to file the

notice at a later time. 

Petitioner asserts several grounds for removal:

1. My attempts and ability to exercise my 

Sixth Amendment right to adequate legal

counsel have been nullified due to

ineffective assistance of counsel (Hugo

Gomez-Vidal) not being ready for the

precedinas [sic] on the Court Calendar and

telling blatant lies to the Court which

prejudiced the Court further hindering my

ability to move my case forward;

2. My attempts and ability to exercise my

Fourteenth Amendment right to adequate Due

Process and Equal Protection under the Laws

continue to be thwarted and nullified by the

deliberate acts of Correctional Staff

obstructing my efforts to develop an

advisarial [sic] defense through the

investigation of the Correctional Staff in

question;

3. My attempts and ability to exercise my

First and Fourteenth Amendment right to

petition the government for a redress of

grievances had been severly inhibited by teh

unprofessional conduct of the 'Trial Court'

Judge T. DeSantos in his continual and

blatant obstruction of my Motions before teh

Court. (Exhibit A Judicial Complaint)

2

Case 1:10-cv-00673-OWW -GSA Document 2 Filed 05/03/10 Page 2 of 4
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

Pitchess Motion

Defendant requested records of four

Correctional Officers but was only

provided two. The other two

Correctional Officer's [sic] who's

[sic] records were withheld were

the prymary [sic] subjects in

question but Judge De Santo's [sic]

ignored the request for continuance

to obtain these records.

Motion To Compell [sic]

Defendants [sic] Motion to Compell

[sic] was also mishandled in that

the material requested was never

provided. The evidence would have

exposed the extent to which

Correctional Officers beat the

Defendant.

Petitioner asserts upon information and belief:

I have come to understand that the element

which is the spawn of this abuse and

miscarrige of justice is racially motivated

and the exact type of egregious misconduct of

staff which Corcoran State Prison and Kings

County is known for. It has also come to my

attention that it is a common practice of

Correctional Staff at Corcoran State Prison

to set inmates up on false charges as a

diversionary tactic to hide the assaults

batteries and abuse [sic] that they

themselves inflict on the Inmate Population.

With respect to removal under Section 1443, the Ninth

Circuit explains in People v. Sandoval, 434 F.2d 635 (9 Cir. th

1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 909 (1971):

The Supreme Court ... has given section 1443

a restrictive interpretation. In two related

cases in 1966, Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S.

780 ... and Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S 808

..., the Court set out the narrow parameters

of this right. All petitions for removal

must satisfy two criteria: First, the

petitioners must assert, as a defense to the

3

Case 1:10-cv-00673-OWW -GSA Document 2 Filed 05/03/10 Page 3 of 4
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

prosecution, rights that are given to them by

explicit statutory enactment protecting equal

racial civil rights ... Second, petitioners

must assert that the state courts will not

enforce that right, and that allegation must

be supported by reference to a state statute

or a constitutional provision that purports

to command the state courts to ignore federal

rights. Bad experiences with the particular

court in question will not suffice ....

Here, Petitioner fails to make the showing required by

Sandoval. Petitioner makes no reference to a state statute or

constitutional provision that commands the state court to ignore

federal rights. Consequently, this action is REMANDED to the

Kern County Superior Court pursuant to Section 1446(c)(4).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

Case 1:10-cv-00673-OWW -GSA Document 2 Filed 05/03/10 Page 4 of 4