Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02695/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02695-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
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

27

28

1 10cv2695 BTM(BGS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 10cv2695 BTM(BGS)

ORDER REMANDING CASE

v.

JAMES L. THOMPSON,

Defendant.

In this criminal case, which was commenced in state court, Defendant is charged with

the misdemeanors of driving under the influence with 0.15 or more blood alcohol (Cal. Veh.

Code 23152(a)) and driving while having a measurable blood alcohol (Cal. Veh. Code §

23152(b)). On December 30, 2010, Defendant removed the case to federal court. For the

reasons discussed below, the Court remands the case. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1443, a defendant seeking to remove a criminal action to federal

court must satisfy the following criteria: (1) the defendant must assert, as a defense to the

prosecution, rights that are given to him by explicit statutory enactment protecting equal

racial civil rights; and (2) the defendant must assert that the state courts will not enforce that

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

that purports to command the state courts to ignore the federal rights. Georgia v. Rachel,

384 U.S. 780 (1966); Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808 (1966). Defendant has not

established that this action is removable under § 1443. 

Case 3:10-cv-02695-BTM-BGS Document 2 Filed 01/04/11 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 10cv2695 BTM(BGS)

Defendant, a military officer, also cites to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442 and 1442a as bases for

removal. However, these statutes are inapplicable because Defendant is not being charged

on account of an act done under color of his office. The fact that Defendant was allegedly

en route to his military assignment when he was arrested does not bring this case within the

scope of §§ 1442 or 1442a. See State v. Simanonok, 850 F.2d 1429 (11th Cir. 1988)

(affirming remand of criminal prosecution for driving under the influence because the

defendant military officer was not involved in any official duties at the time of his arrest). 

Therefore, the Court concludes that it lacks removal jurisdiction over this case and

REMANDS the case to the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, North County

Division.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 4, 2011

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-02695-BTM-BGS Document 2 Filed 01/04/11 Page 2 of 2