Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-01470/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-01470-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marr Sanchez & Associates
Plaintiff
Claudia Mazariegos
Defendant

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 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARR SANCHEZ & ASSOCIATES, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CLAUDIA MAZARIEGOS, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 17-cv-01470-JSW 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE 

SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR 

LACK OF JURISIDICTION 

Re: Dkt. No. 1 

On March 17, 2017, Defendant, acting pro se, filed a Notice of Removal, citing 28 U.S.C. 

section 1443(1) as the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction. Section 1443(1) provides: 

[a]ny 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[.] 

The Complaint attached to Defendant’s notice of removal is for an unlawful detainer action 

in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda. A party seeking to remove a case 

pursuant to Section 1443(1) must satisfy a two-part test. See Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 

996, 999 (9th Cir. 2006). The first requirement is that a petitioner “‘must assert, as a defense to 

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

racial civil rights.’” Id. (quoting California v. Sandoval, 434 F.2d 635, 636 (9th Cir. 1970). The 

second requirement is that a petitioner “‘must assert that the state courts will not enforce that right, 

and that allegation must be supported by reference to a state statute or a constitutional provision 

that purports to command the state courts to ignore the federal rights.’” Id. (quoting Sandoval, 

434 F.2d at 636). 

Case 4:17-cv-01470-JSW Document 4 Filed 03/21/17 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

the

144

Ca

201

Ca

jur

sho

Cau

Pla

hel

or i

De

Fra

for

rep

Da

Apart fr

ere are no fac

43(1). See, e

l. Feb. 16, 2

17); Wells F

l. May 2, 20

isdiction wh

Accord

ould not rem

use shall be 

aintiff is requ

The Co

lpful informa

in the Clerk

efendant may

ancisco Cour

r a free appoi

presentation.

IT IS S

ated: March 

from Defend

cts from whi

e.g., Ariza v.

017), report

Fargo Bank, N

013) (“Simila

here allegatio

dingly, Defen

mand this cas

due by Apri

uired. 

ourt advises D

ation about p

’s office. De

y call the Leg

rthouse, Roo

intment with

SO ORDER

21, 2017 

ant’s conclu

ich the Cour

. Skinner, No

t and recomm

N.A. v. Vann

ar to 28 U.S.

ons of discrim

ndant is HER

e for lack of

il 7, 2011. U

Defendant th

proceeding w

efendant also

gal Help Cen

om 2796, or 

h an attorney

RED. 

2

usory assertio

rt can discern

o. 17-cv-005

mendation a

n, No. 13-cv

.C. section 1

mination are

REBY ORDE

f jurisdiction

Unless the C

hat that a Ha

without an at

o may seek a

nter at 415-7

on the 4th F

y who may b

___

JEF

Un

on that jurisd

n this case fa

546-DMR, 2

dopted by 20

v-01148-YGR

1343, section

e conclusory

ERED TO S

n. Defendan

ourt orders o

andbook for 

ttorney, is av

assistance fr

782-8982 or 

Floor of the O

be able to pro

__________

FFREY S. W

nited States D

diction exist

alls within th

2017 WL 93

017 WL 929

R, 2013 WL

n 1443(1) wi

y and lacking

SHOW CAU

nt’s response

otherwise, n

Pro Se Litig

vailable thro

rom the Lega

sign up on t

Oakland Cou

ovide basic l

___________

WHITE 

District Judg

ts under Sect

he scope of S

9019, at *2-

9561 (N.D. C

L 1856711, a

ill not provid

g factual bas

USE why the

e to this Orde

o response f

gants, which 

ough the Cou

al Help Cent

the 15th Floo

urthouse, Ro

legal help, b

__________

ge 

tion 1443(1)

Section 

*3 (N.D. 

Cal. Mar. 9, 

at *4 (N.D. 

de 

sis.”). 

e Court 

er to Show 

from 

contains 

urt’s website

ter. 

or of the San

oom 470S, 

but not legal 

________ 

), 

e

n

Case 4:17-cv-01470-JSW Document 4 Filed 03/21/17 Page 2 of 2