Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04474/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04474-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carlvin Justice
Plaintiff
People of the State of California
Defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLVIN JUSTICE,

Plaintiff, No. C 05-4474 PJH

v. NOTICE AND ORDER

PEOPLE OF THE STATE 

OF CALIFORNIA et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

The court is in receipt of a document, filed by plaintiff, entitled “Plaintiff Notice or

Motion to Reject PJH Pleadings, and Move for Affirmation on Appeal.” The nature of

plaintiff’s request is unclear, though it appears plaintiff may be attempting to appeal one or

several of the court’s prior orders with respect to this case. 

As stated in its prior Notice, filed January 5, 2006, the instant case is no longer

within the court’s jurisdiction, as a result of the following: on November 3, 2005, plaintiff

filed a notice of removal under 28 U.S.C. section 1442 and 18 U.S.C. section 3150. On

November 30, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, in which

she concluded that plaintiff’s petition for removal was an improper attempt to remove a

pending state court criminal prosecution against him. As such plaintiff failed to meet his

burden of establishing federal jurisdiction and she recommended that the case be

remanded to state court. On December 18, 2005, after reviewing plaintiff’s objections to

the Report and Recommendation, this court issued an order adopting the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and remanded this case to Alameda County

Superior Court. As of December 18, 2005, therefore, this court no longer has jurisdiction

over this case. 

Case 4:05-cv-04474-PJH Document 14 Filed 01/23/06 Page 1 of 2
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

In view of the above facts, plaintiff’s requests filed subsequent to December 18,

including the instant request filed on January 12, 2006, are not effective and do not

constitute proper requests for relief. Accordingly, the court will disregard them. 

The court notes that plaintiff is free to file any appeal to which the law entitles him,

but that appeal cannot be filed in this court and must instead be filed before the proper

court – i.e., the court in which jurisdiction over any such appeal rests. 

The court further notifies plaintiff that it will not consider any future filings or requests

submitted by him. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2006 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-04474-PJH Document 14 Filed 01/23/06 Page 2 of 2