Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00333/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00333-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harjit Bhambra
Defendant
People of the State of California
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE

OF CALIFORNIA, No. CIV S-10-0333 LKK DAD PS

Plaintiff,

vs.

HARJIT BHAMBRA, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendant.

 /

Defendant Harjit Bhambra, proceeding pro se, has filed a motion for removal of a

state criminal prosecution from Nevada County Superior Court. Defendant has paid the filing fee

required for a federal civil action, and this case has been opened as a civil case. Defendant has

also filed a motion to relate this case to Harjit Bhambra v. County of Nevada, et al., case No. CIV

S-09-3124 JAM EFB PS (E.D. Cal.). The proceeding has been referred to the undersigned in

accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Defendant seeks to remove his state criminal action on the basis of a “federal and

constitutional question.” He cites 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(a), and 1446(a). Defendant

complains that the district attorney for Nevada County is “prosecuting United States citizens

without ever taking, signing or subscribing the constitutional Oath of Office” and that, “once

defendant uncover[ed] the corruption and filing of the false documents, the District Attorney and

Case 2:10-cv-00333-LKK -DAD Document 5 Filed 02/10/10 Page 1 of 6
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

state judges conspired against defendants and wilfully filed false and untrue documents with

governmental offices to support each other’s scheme, therefore the Federal and State

constitutions are being overthrown in Nevada County by violating the federally protected rights

of United States citizens.” Mot. (Doc. No. 2) at 2. Defendant alleges further that (1) after he

uncovered the district attorney’s failure to take the oath of office, he was falsely imprisoned in

Nevada County for 60 days by the Nevada County Sheriff, (2) the judge presiding over

defendant’s criminal case altered his own oath of office and submitted it to the Nevada County

Recorder’s Office “for improper purpose,” and (3) other officials involved in defendant’s

criminal case, including the California Highway Patrol officer who issued the ticket, a deputy

district attorney, another judge, and two Probation Department employees, had not been sworn in

to their offices. Id. at 2-3. Defendant cites California Government Code sections 1360-69 in

support of his contention that the district attorney had no authority to issue an arrest warrant and

prosecute defendant without having taken his oath of office.

Defendant’s motion and exhibits reveal that in 2007 defendant was arrested, tried,

and convicted of the felony of having a blank, incomplete, canceled, suspended, revoked, altered,

forged, counterfeit, and false temporary vehicle registration in his car and attempted to pass it off

as a true and genuine registration. Defendant contends that his entire criminal case is null and

void because of the failure of the district attorney and other Nevada County officials and

employees to take the oath of office and that Nevada County officials are now prosecuting him

for alleged probation violations in retaliation for his having uncovered corruption in Nevada

County. Defendant seeks removal of his case to federal court for further proceedings and urges

this court to order Nevada County officials to produce their credentials and demonstrate what

authority they had to prosecute defendant in 2007.

This court’s jurisdiction over defendant’s state criminal action depends on

whether defendant has complied with the removal statutes applicable to criminal prosecutions. 

See Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 682-83 (9th Cir. 2006) (“In cases

Case 2:10-cv-00333-LKK -DAD Document 5 Filed 02/10/10 Page 2 of 6
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

removed from state court, the removing defendant has ‘always’ borne the burden of establishing

federal jurisdiction. . . .”); Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Newman & Holtzinger, 992 F.2d 932,

934 (9th Cir. 1993) (“The party seeking removal has the burden of establishing federal

jurisdiction . . . .”). Courts strictly construe the removal statutes against removal jurisdiction, and

any doubt as to the right of removal must be resolved in favor of remand. Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76

F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Conclusory allegations of jurisdictional facts will not suffice, and a removed case should be

remanded by the district court if the removing party fails to establish the necessary jurisdictional

facts by a preponderance of evidence. Gaus, 980 F.2d at 567; Beaver v. NPC Int’l, 451 F. Supp.

2d 1196, 1198 (D. Or. 2006); Bosinger v. Phillips Plastics Corp., 57 F. Supp. 2d 986, 988-89

(S.D. Cal. 1999).

The notice of removal of a criminal prosecution “shall include all grounds for

such removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2). Failure to state any ground which exists at the time of

the filing of the notice constitutes a waiver of such ground. Id. “If it clearly appears on the face

of the notice and any exhibits annexed thereto that removal should not be permitted, the court

shall make an order for summary remand.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4).

Here, defendant has filed his motion for removal under the authority of 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1441(a) and 1446(a). However, § 1441(a) applies only to civil actions that were brought in a

state court, and § 1446, titled “Procedure for removal,” contains only procedural provisions. 

Thus, neither of the removal provisions cited by defendant provides authority for removal of his

criminal case to federal court. Defendant’s reliance on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is also misplaced

because this statute, titled “Federal question,” provides that federal district courts “shall have

original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the

United States.” Defendant does not seek to remove a civil action arising under the United States

Constitution or any federal law or treaty.

/////

Case 2:10-cv-00333-LKK -DAD Document 5 Filed 02/10/10 Page 3 of 6
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

The removal statutes provide for the removal of state criminal prosecutions only

in limited circumstances.

 Any of the following civil actions or criminal prosecutions,

commenced in a State court may be removed by the defendant to

the district court of the United States for the district and division

embracing the place wherein it is pending:

(1) Against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in

the courts of such State a right under any law providing for

the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of

all persons within the jurisdiction thereof;

(2) For any act under color of authority derived

from any law providing for equal rights, or for

refusing to do any act on the ground that it would be

inconsistent with such law.

28 U.S.C. § 1443. A case may be removed under § 1443(1) only where a two-pronged test is

met. “First, it must appear that the right allegedly denied the removal petitioner arises under a

federal law ‘providing for specific civil rights stated in terms of racial equality.’” Johnson v.

Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 219 (1975) (quoting Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 792 (1966)). 

“Second, it must appear . . . that the removal petitioner is ‘denied or cannot enforce’ the specified

federal rights ‘in the courts of (the) State.’” Id. (quoting Rachel, 384 U.S. at 803). In general,

there must be a state law or constitutional provision that denies the defendant an opportunity to

raise a federal right in his state criminal proceeding. Id. (citing Rachel, 384 U.S. at 803).

The ground for removal of a state criminal prosecution to federal court under

§ 1443(1) is “both specific and extremely narrow.” Davis v. Superior Court, 464 F.2d 1272,

1273 (9th Cir. 1972). Removal under this provision “is proper only if the petitioner asserts, ‘as a

defense to the prosecution, rights that are given to [him] by explicit statutory enactment

protecting equal racial civil rights.’” Id. at 1272 (quoting People of State of California v.

Sandoval, 434 F.2d 635, 636 (9th Cir. 1970)). In Davis, the defendant had been charged with

violating statutes that made it criminal for a convicted felon to own or possess a concealable

firearm, or to carry such a firearm in a vehicle on a public street. Id. The Ninth Circuit found

Case 2:10-cv-00333-LKK -DAD Document 5 Filed 02/10/10 Page 4 of 6
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

5

that Davis’ only claim in support of removal was that his prior convictions were “invalid for

various specific reasons, none remotely related to the protection of equal racial civil rights.” Id. 

Here, defendant Bhambra was charged on February 8, 2007, with violating a

statute that makes it a felony to unlawfully have in one’s possession a blank, incomplete,

canceled, suspended, revoked, altered, forged, counterfeit, and false temporary registration,

issued and purported to be issued by the California Department of Motor Vehicles, and to utter,

publish, pass, and attempt to pass that registration as true and genuine, knowing it to be false,

altered, forged, and counterfeited with the intent to prejudice, damage, and defraud the State of

California. Cal. Penal Code section 4463(a)(2). Defendant Bhambra was also charged with the

infraction of unlawfully operating a commercial motor vehicle in excess of its registered declared

gross or combined gross vehicle weights. Cal. Vehicle Code section 4000.6(d). See Mot. for

Removal, Ex. A. Defendant was convicted of a felony violation of section 4463(a)(2) and was

placed on probation for a period of three years. Id.

Defendant’s motion for removal demonstrates that he did not assert and does not

seek to assert as a defense to his state criminal prosecution any right under a statute that

explicitly protects equal racial civil rights. Defendant was charged with crimes that are not the

subject of protection by any civil rights legislation, and defendant has not alleged or argued that

his state criminal prosecution denied him vindication of any statute protecting equal racial civil

rights, that he has been denied equal racial civil rights, or that he cannot enforce such rights in

the state courts. Nor does defendant claim that he was prosecuted for acting pursuant to a law

providing for equal rights or for refusing to act in a manner inconsistent with a law providing for

equal rights, as required for removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443(2). Instead, defendant seeks

only to enforce state law provisions regarding oaths of office, a purpose unrelated to equal rights.

Moreover, defendant’s motion for removal of his state criminal case to federal

court is untimely. “A notice of removal of a criminal prosecution shall be filed not later than

thirty days after the arraignment in the State court, or at any time before trial, whichever is

Case 2:10-cv-00333-LKK -DAD Document 5 Filed 02/10/10 Page 5 of 6
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

6

earlier, except that for good cause shown the United States district court may enter an order

granting the defendant . . . leave to file the notice at a later time.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1). 

Defendant did not file a timely notice of removal in 2007 and has not shown good cause for leave

to file such a notice out of time.

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendant’s February 9, 2010 motion for removal (Doc. No. 2) be denied;

2. Defendant’s February 9, 2010 motion to relate cases (Doc. No. 3) be denied;

3. Defendant’s state court criminal action be remanded to Nevada County

Superior Court; and

4. This case be closed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, defendant shall file any

objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal

the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: February 10, 2010.

DAD:kw

Ddad1\orders.prose\bhambra0333.f&r.remand

Case 2:10-cv-00333-LKK -DAD Document 5 Filed 02/10/10 Page 6 of 6