Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00569/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00569-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331cv Fed. Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALBERT PUENTE,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 16cv569-LAB (JMA)

ORDER OF REMAND

vs.

ALLAN B. MITCHELL,

Defendant.

Defendant Allan Mitchell, who is proceeding pro se, removed this unlawful detainer

action from state court and filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

A district court must examine notices of removal and remand actions if the Court lacks

jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Sparta Surgical Corp. v. Nat'l Ass'n of Sec. Dealers, Inc.,

159 F.3d 1209, 1211 (9th Cir. 1998).

Mitchell argues the Court has jurisdiction because he wishes to raise federal defenses

or counterclaims. Federal defenses or counterclaims, however, do not give rise to federal

jurisdiction. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 59 (2009). 

He also argues removal is proper under relies on 28 U.S.C. § 1443, alleging unfair

treatment by the state courts against him and other minority litigants in unlawful detainer

actions. The Supreme Court has articulated a two-part test for examining actions removed

under § 1443. First, the removing party must assert, as a defense, rights given to him by

explicit statutory enactment protecting equal racial civil rights. See Patel v. Del Taco, Inc.,

- 1 - 16cv569

Case 3:16-cv-00569-LAB-JMA Document 4 Filed 03/09/16 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

446 F.3d 996, 998–99 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authority). 

Mitchell has not done this. Instead, he points to his rights under the U.S. Constitution and

statutes protecting homeowners generally. 

Second, the removing party must assert that state courts will not enforce that right,

and support that allegation by reference to a state statute or a constitutional provision

purporting to command the state courts to ignore the federal rights. Id. Mitchell has not

done this either. Instead, he argues that California's state courts are rife with unofficial

racism and bigotry. Merely charging state courts with racial bias does not satisfy this

requirement.

Most of the notice of removal appears to have been cut and pasted from some other

document. It is substantially identical to the equally frivolous notices of removal filed in

16cv384-LAB (NLS), Orozco v. Escalante (S.D. Cal., filed Feb. 16, 2016); and 16cv557-LAB

(NLS), Village Mission Valley, LLC v. Veronica Valerio (S.D. Cal., filed March 4, 2016), even

down to the typeface. Like the other two, this notice of removal is completely meritless. 

This action is ORDERED REMANDED to the Superior Court of California for the

County of San Diego, Central Division. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED

AS MOOT. The Court certifies that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good

faith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 9, 2016

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 16cv569

Case 3:16-cv-00569-LAB-JMA Document 4 Filed 03/09/16 Page 2 of 2