Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-mc-80155/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-mc-80155-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
People of the State of California
Plaintiff
Shirley V. Remmert
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHIRLEY V. REMMERT,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 07-80155 CW

ORDER REMANDING

CASE AND DENYING

APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

Defendant Shirley V. Remmert requests leave to proceed in

forma pauperis (IFP) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) to remove a

criminal case, People v. Remmert, No. SM 351187A, filed against her

in San Mateo County Superior Court. The Court DENIES Defendant’s

request to proceed in forma pauperis and remands the case to state

court. 

DISCUSSION

 I. Legal Standard

Defendant states in her notice of removal that this case may

be removed to this Court on the basis of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a civil

rights statute, joinder of the United States as a necessary party,

Case 4:07-mc-80155-CW Document 6 Filed 08/08/07 Page 1 of 6
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

1 Defendant also cites "FRCP 1444_." 

2 Section 1915(e)(2)(B) states:

. . . the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the

court determines that--

(B) the action or appeal--

(i) is frivolous or malicious;

(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be

granted; or

(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant

who is immune from such relief.

3

 Prior to amendment in 1996, § 1915(e)(2)(B) was numbered 

§ 1915(d).

2

and federal question jurisdiction.1

A. In Forma Pauperis

The Ninth Circuit has indicated that leave to proceed IFP

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is properly granted only when the

plaintiff has demonstrated poverty and has presented a claim that

is not factually or legally frivolous within the definition of

§ 1915(e)(2)(B).2 O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir.

1990); Tripati v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370

(9th Cir. 1987).3 Thus, the court "may deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the

proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit." 

Id. An in forma pauperis complaint is frivolous if it has "no

arguable basis in fact or law." O'Loughlin, 920 F.2d at 617;

Tripati, 821 F.2d at 1379.

Section 1915(e)(2)(B) accords judges the unusual power to

pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss

those claims where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. 

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 34 (1992). Because a dismissal

Case 4:07-mc-80155-CW Document 6 Filed 08/08/07 Page 2 of 6
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

pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B) is not a dismissal on the merits, but

rather an exercise of the court's discretion under the in forma

pauperis statute, the dismissal does not prejudice the filing of a

paid complaint making the same allegations. Id.

B. Removal

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1443, which governs removal of criminal

actions, provides:

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 of 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.

Section 1443(1), which grants a right of removal to certain

petitioners who claim federal rights based on racial equality as a

defense to a state prosecution, has been narrowly interpreted by

the United States Supreme Court. California v. Sandoval, 434 F.2d

635, 636 (9th Cir. 1971). Petitions for removal under § 1443(1)

must satisfy two criteria. Id. First, the petitioner must assert,

as a defense to the prosecution, rights arising under a federal

statute providing for specific civil rights stated in terms of

racial equality. Id. Second, the petitioner must assert that the

state courts will not enforce these civil rights and must cite a

state statute or constitutional provision that purports to command

the state courts to ignore them. Id. Bad experience with the

Case 4:07-mc-80155-CW Document 6 Filed 08/08/07 Page 3 of 6
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 4

particular State court in question is insufficient to meet the 

§ 1443(1) requirements. Id.

Section 1443(2) is limited to removal of criminal cases

brought against federal officers and agents. See Alabama v. Kemp,

952 F. Supp. 722, 723 (N.D. Ala. 1997). 

C. Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a cause of action for the

"deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by

the Constitution and laws" of the United States. 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights,

but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights

elsewhere conferred. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94

(1989). In order to state a claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must

allege two elements: (1) the violation of a right secured by the

Constitution or laws of the United States, and (2) the alleged

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state

law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

II. Analysis

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is inapplicable to this case because

Defendant is not a plaintiff alleging the violation of a federal

right by a person acting under the color of state law.

Defendant has not met either criteria for removal under 

§ 1443(1). First, Defendant does not state in her notice of

removal that she has asserted, as a defense to prosecution, rights

arising under a federal statute providing for specific civil rights

stated in terms of racial equality. Second, Defendant has not

asserted that the state courts will not enforce these civil rights

Case 4:07-mc-80155-CW Document 6 Filed 08/08/07 Page 4 of 6
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 5

and has not cited a state statute or constitutional provision that

purports to command the state courts to ignore them. Section

1443(2) also is not applicable here because it is limited to

removal of criminal cases brought against federal officers and

agents, and Defendant has not alleged that she is a federal officer

or agent. See Kemp, 952 F. Supp. at 723. Therefore, this Court

lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Defendant's criminal case

and it must be remanded to state court. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant’s

request to proceed in forma pauperis to remove her criminal case

and remands the case to state court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 8/8/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-mc-80155-CW Document 6 Filed 08/08/07 Page 5 of 6
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 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA et

al,

Plaintiff,

 v.

REMMERT et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-80155 CW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court,

Northern District of California.

That on August 8, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located

in the Clerk's office.

Shirley V. Remmert

Women's Correctional Center

San Mateo County Sheriff's Office

1590 Maple Street

Redwood City, CA 94063

Dated: August 8, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Sheilah Cahill, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:07-mc-80155-CW Document 6 Filed 08/08/07 Page 6 of 6