Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03260/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03260-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ASHWANI K BHAKHRI,

Plaintiff,

v

BRIJ MOHAN DHIR,

Defendant. /

No C-05-3260 VRW

ORDER

On October 21, 2005, the court issued an order to show

cause in writing on or before October 31, 2005, why Dhir’s August

10, 2005, notice of removal from Alameda County superior court

satisfies 28 USC §§ 1441(b) and 1446(d). Doc #9. In particular,

the court noted that Dhir appears to be a California resident,

thereby precluding removal under 28 USC § 1441(b), and that “the

court’s docket does not indicate any service of the notice of

removal on the state court clerk,” implying the removal was

procedurally inadequate under 28 USC § 1446(d). Id.

On October 26, 2005, Bhakhri responded to the show cause

order by agreeing with the court’s reasoning in that order and

Case 3:05-cv-03260-VRW Document 13 Filed 11/29/05 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

requesting that the court remand this case to state court. Doc

#10. On October 28, 2005, Dhir filed a declaration stating that he

had served the relevant parties with the notice of removal in a

timely manner, thus addressing whether his removal satisfies the

procedural requirements of 28 USC § 1446(d). Doc #11.

Dhir then addressed whether his removal satisfies 28 USC

§ 1441(b) in a second declaration filed on November 2, 2005, two

days after the October 31, 2005, deadline. Doc #12. Dhir

explained that “[t]his [case] is not a general removal under

section 1441 of Title 28; but, special removal under section 1443

following section 1334 of Title 28 for civil rights federal

jurisdiction.” Id at 3. Section 1334 deals with bankruptcy

proceedings and is inapplicable. Instead, Dhir would seem to refer

to 28 USC § 1343, which Dhir has cited elsewhere in his second

declaration and which provides for federal jurisdiction over

certain civil rights claims.

The court does not have to consider Dhir’s second

declaration, as it was filed after the October 31, 2005, deadline. 

But in any case, removal under either 28 USC § 1443 or § 1343, as

Dhir has alleged, is improper here.

Section 1443(2) is inapplicable here because Dhir was

neither a federal officer nor a person assisting a federal officer

in performance of his official duties as required under this

statute. See Greenwood v Peacock, 384 US 808, 814-24 (1966). 28

USC § 1443(1) also does not apply because Dhir has not shown that

he was deprived of rights guaranteed by a law providing for equal

civil rights. Bhakhri has asserted only a state law libel claim,

Doc #1 at Ex A, which does not arise under the Constitution,

Case 3:05-cv-03260-VRW Document 13 Filed 11/29/05 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

treaties or laws of the United States, much less provide for

“equal” civil rights within the meaning of section 1443(1). Id at

825. Accordingly, 28 USC § 1443(1) does not provide a basis for

removal.

Moreover, 28 USC § 1343 does not create federal

jurisdiction over Bhakhri’s claim that would justify removal as

that claim does not implicate civil rights or elective franchise. 

See Buerger v Southwestern Bell Telephone, 982 F Supp 1253, 1255-56

(ED Tex 1997); Spampinato v M Breger & Co, 166 F Supp 33, 35-36

(EDNY 1958). Hence, no jurisdiction exists under 28 USC § 1343.

Accordingly, the court REMANDS the case to Alameda County

superior court. The clerk is DIRECTED to close the file and

TERMINATE all motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03260-VRW Document 13 Filed 11/29/05 Page 3 of 3