Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01263/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01263-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT HACKWORTH,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01263-OWW-SMS PC

KINGS COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

CASE NO. 08 CM 7461

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

REMOVAL PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1447, REMANDING ACTION, AND

DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO CLOSE

CASE 

(Doc. 1)

On July 9, 2010, Robert Hackworth, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for

removal of the state criminal prosecution against him pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447. 

1

Certain petitioners who claim federally secured rights as a defense to a state prosecution have

a right of removal under section 1447. California v. Sandoval, 434 F.2d 635, 636 (9th Cir. 1970)

(per curiam). The right is restricted to petitioners who (1) “‘assert, as defense to the prosecution,

rights that are given to them by explicit statutory enactment protecting equal racial civil rights,’” and

(2) assert “‘the state courts will not enforce that right, . . . supported by a reference to a state statute

or a constitutional provision that purports to command the state courts to ignore the federal rights.’” 

Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 999 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Sandoval, 434 F.2d at 636). Bad

experiences with the state court in question will not suffice as grounds for removal. Sandoval at 636.

///

Kings County Superior Court case number 08 CM 7461.

1

1

Case 1:10-cv-01263-OWW -SMS Document 4 Filed 07/21/10 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

In this instance, Hackworth seeks to remove the state court case because he is unhappy with

his attorney and asserts he is being denied effective assistance of counsel, in violation of the Sixth

Amendment of the United States Constitution. 

Hackworth fails to meet the restrictive criteria for removal under section 1447, his petition

for removal is HEREBY DENIED, and this matter is REMANDED to the Kings County Superior

Court. Davis v. Superior Court, 464 F.2d 1272, 1273 (9th Cir. 1972). The Clerk of the Court is

DIRECTED to serve a copy of this order on Kings County Superior Court and close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 20, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:10-cv-01263-OWW -SMS Document 4 Filed 07/21/10 Page 2 of 2