Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04474/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04474-2/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.

_______________________________/

On December 18, 2005, the court issued an order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s

Report and Recommendation, and remanded this case to Alameda County Superior Court,

the state court from which plaintiff appears to have originally improperly removed the case. 

On February 1, 2006, however, the Alameda County Superior Court returned the court’s

remand order, stating that the state court case number originally provided by plaintiff to the

court – and subsequently referenced on all federal court documents – is not a recognizable

case number within the Alameda Superior Court system. 

As the court has already found that this case does not belong in this court, there are

only two options–remand or dismissal. If this case is a criminal case originating in Alameda

County, it must be remanded to that county as this court has attempted to do. However, it

is essential that an accurate case number be provided in order to accomplish the remand. 

If plaintiff disagrees and believes this case belongs in federal court, his only option would

be an appeal from a dismissal entered by this court. Accordingly, plaintiff must either

provide the correct Alameda County Superior Court case number within 30 days of the date

of this order, so that the court can once again remand this case to the proper court, or the

court will dismiss this action for lack of jurisdiction so that plaintiff may avail himself of any

Case 4:05-cv-04474-PJH Document 16 Filed 02/15/06 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

appeal to which the law may entitle him in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 15, 2006 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-04474-PJH Document 16 Filed 02/15/06 Page 2 of 2