Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00339/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00339-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1446 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFERSON A. McGEE, No. CIV.S-05-0339 WBS DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

MMDD SACRAMENTO PROJECT,

a general partnership, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

Petitioner is proceeding in this action pro se. On

February 22, 2005, he filed a petition for removal along with a

request to proceed in forma pauperis. Thereafter, on July 14, 2005,

petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order. For the

reasons set forth below the undersigned will recommend that this

action be summarily remanded to state court and that petitioner’s

motion for temporary restraining order be denied.

A review of the petition, as well as the amended petition

filed on March 8, 2005, reveals that petitioner is seeking to remove

to federal court an unlawful detainer proceeding brought against him

Case 2:05-cv-00339-WBS-DAD Document 17 Filed 08/02/05 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

2

by his landlord, respondent MMDD Sacramento Project, in Sacramento

County Superior Court. Petitioner’s motion for temporary restraining

order seeks to enjoin respondent, the County of Sacramento and other

officials from evicting him from the commercial property which is

involved in the unlawful detainer action in state court.

Removal statutes are strictly construed against removal. 

See Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir.

1979). "Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt

as to the right of removal in the first instance." Gaus v. Miles,

980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). "The burden of establishing

federal jurisdiction falls on the party invoking removal." Harris v.

Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir.

1994)(quoting Gould v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of New York, 790 F.2d 769,

771 (9th Cir. 1986)).

Here, plaintiff relies on 28 U.S.C. § 1443 as providing 

the removal jurisdiction of this court. A party removing an action

under § 1443 must satisfy the following two-part test: (1) the court

must determine that the right allegedly being denied the removal

petitioner arises under a federal law providing for specific civil

rights stated in terms of equality; and (2) the court must determine

that the petitioner cannot enforce the specified federal right in

state court. Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 220 (1975);

Georgia v. Rachel, 383 U.S. 780, 792, 794-99 (1966).

Even if petitioner could satisfy the first prong of this

test, he cannot meet the second. In this regard, a defendant has no

inherent right to a federal forum to adjudicate a federal right

Case 2:05-cv-00339-WBS-DAD Document 17 Filed 08/02/05 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

3

absent exclusive federal jurisdiction. Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr.

Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10-12 (1983). 

[T]he vindication of the defendant’s federal

rights is left to the state courts except in the

rare situations where it can clearly be predicted

by reason of the operation of a pervasive and

explicit state law or federal law that those

rights will inevitably be denied by the very act

of bringing the defendant to trial in the state

court.

 

City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 828 (1966). This showing

normally requires that "the denial be manifest in a formal expression

of state law." Rachel, 384 U.S. at 803; see also Johnson, 421 U.S.

at 220. 

Plaintiff contends that his landlord’s bringing of an

unlawful detainer action against him in state court, alleging failure

to pay the rent on his business location, was racially motivated. 

Petitioner claims that his landlord as well as state and city

officials have violated his federal rights with respect to the

business property which is involved in the state court unlawful

detainer action. However, this is a garden-variety unlawful detainer

action properly filed in state court. Petitioner has not

sufficiently alleged specific facts substantiating his claims that

his federal rights have been violated. Nor has petitioner

demonstrated that he will be denied his rights under federal law if

this matter remains in state court. State courts are bound to uphold

the federal constitution and there is no reason to doubt that the

state court will do so in this action. 

///// 

Case 2:05-cv-00339-WBS-DAD Document 17 Filed 08/02/05 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

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order

be denied;

2. This state civil action be summarily remanded to the

Sacramento County Superior Court;

3. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis

be denied without prejudice as moot; and

4. The Clerk of the Court be directed to close this case.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten days after

being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may

file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all

parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to

Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v.

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: August 1, 2005.

DAD:th

ddad1\orders.prose\mcgee0339.f&r.remand

Case 2:05-cv-00339-WBS-DAD Document 17 Filed 08/02/05 Page 4 of 4