Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03528/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03528-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CITY OF SANTA ROSA. PEOPLE OF THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

RAMAN D. PATEL, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-07-3528 MMC

ORDER REMANDING ACTION

The instant action was removed to federal court on July 6, 2007 and reassigned to

the undersigned on July 20, 2007. Defendants purport to remove the action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1443, which, in relevant part, provides: “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: (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.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1).

A petition for removal under § 1443(1) must satisfy a two-part test. See Patel v. Del

Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 998 (9th Cir. 2006). “First, the petitioners must assert, as a

defense to the prosecution, rights that are given to them by explicit statutory enactment

Case 3:07-cv-03528-MMC Document 9 Filed 07/24/07 Page 1 of 2
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

protecting equal racial civil rights.” Id. at 999 (internal quotation and citation omitted). 

“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 constitutional provision that

purports to command the state courts to ignore federal rights.” Id. (internal quotation and

citation omitted). Although defendants contend the instant action is being prosecuted

against them because of their race in violation of their rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and

1982 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution, (see Notice of Removal ¶¶ 7, 12), they do not, and cannot, point to any

provision of California law “that purports to command the state courts to ignore federal

rights.”

Accordingly, the instant action is hereby REMANDED to the California Superior

Court for the County of Sonoma.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 24, 2007 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03528-MMC Document 9 Filed 07/24/07 Page 2 of 2