Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01092/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01092-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 990
Nature of Suit: other
Cause of Action: 

---

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE ) 

OF COLORADO, ) 

) 

Plaintiff/Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) No. 

) 

JESUS LOPEZ, JR., D.D.S., ) 

) 

Defendant/Appellant. ) 

FILED 

Unit.eel States Court of Appeals Tenth eircuit 

NOV 19 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

90-1092 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

(D.C. No. 90-CR-39) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

Jesus Lopez, Jr .• , D.D.S., Pro se. 

Frederick N. Mattoon, Deputy District Attorney, State of Colorado, 

Pueblo, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee. 

Before McKAY, MOORE, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

McKAY, Circuit Judge. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

Appellate Case: 90-1092 Document: 01019955873 Date Filed: 11/19/1990 Page: 1 
34{a);. 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Defendant Jesus Lopez, Jr., D.D.S., appeals an order remanding this case to Colorado state court. 

Plaintiff State of Colorado commenced this prosecution in 

Colorado state court charging the defendant with three counts of 

fraud by check. On January 29, 1990, the defendant prose filed a 

petition for removal pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 1443 and§ 1446. 

The district court remanded. It found that defendant's 

removal petition alleged that he was denied his rights to a speedy 

and fair trial. The court concluded that this action was 

improperly removed because section 1443 does not authorize removal 

to protect the broad guarantees of the Constitution, and that the 

sixth amendment right to a speedy trial was such a right. Naugle 

v. Oklahoma, 429 F.2d 1268, 1269 (10th Cir. 1970). 

28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) provides for appellate review of the district court's remand: 

An order remanding a case to the State court from which 

it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise, 

except that an order remanding a case to the State court 

from which it was removed pursuant to section 1443 of 

this title shall be reviewable by appeal or otherwise. 

28 u.s.c. § 1447(d) (1988). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-1092 Document: 01019955873 Date Filed: 11/19/1990 Page: 2 
28 u.s.c. § 1443 provides in part: 

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 .... 

28 u.s.c. § 1443 (1988). 

The Supreme Court established a two part test for section 

1443 removal petitions in Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213 

(1975): "First, it must appear that the right allegedly denied 

the removal petitioner arises under a federal law 'providing for 

specific civil rights stated in terms of racial equality.'" Id., 

421 U.S. at 219 (quoting Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 792 

(1966)). A state court defendant's claim that "prosecution and 

conviction will violate rights under constitutional or statutory 

provisions of general applicability or under statutes not protecting against racial discrimination" is insufficient for removal. 

Johnson, 421 U.S. at 219. Second, it must appear "that the 

removal petitioner is 'denied or cannot enforce' the specified 

federal rights 'in the courts of [the] State.'" Id. (quoting 28 

u.s.c. § 1443(1) (1988)). 

We agree with the district court that the defendant has 

failed to satisfy the requirements for removal under section 1443. 

The defendant has made no claim that he is being denied a right 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-1092 Document: 01019955873 Date Filed: 11/19/1990 Page: 3 
arising under a federal law "providing for specific civil rights 

stated in terms of racial equality." Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 

780, 792 (1966). Instead, Dr. Lopez asserts in his petition for 

removal that, in essence, he has been denied his right to a speedy 

trial and that the trial court violated his constitutional rights 

in requesting that his competency to proceed to trial be evaluated. These rights are not, in the language of the statute, 

rights arising "under any law providing for the equal civil 

rights" of United States citizens. 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-1092 Document: 01019955873 Date Filed: 11/19/1990 Page: 4