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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

State of Arizona, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Richard Eugene Corley, 

Defendant. 

No. CR-18-0070 DGC 

ORDER 

 

 Richard Eugene Corley has attempted to remove his state criminal case to this 

Court. Doc. 1. The Court will remand the case to state court. 

 Generally, “a federal court should abstain from interfering with ongoing state 

criminal proceedings[.]” Gedo v. Idaho, No. CV 09-00166-E-BLW, 2009 WL 2848850, 

at *1 (D. Idaho Aug. 28, 2009) (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-45 (1971)). A 

state prosecution may be removed to federal court under the narrow circumstances set 

forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1442-43. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446, the federal court must 

examine the defendant’s removal papers “to determine whether removal is appropriate, 

and the court has the authority to remand a case, sua sponte, for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction.” Gedo, 2009 WL 2848850, at *1; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(4). 

 Because Mr. Corley does not assert that he is a federal officer or a member of the 

United States armed forces, §§ 1442 and 1442a do not apply. 

 Section 1443(1) is strictly construed against removal as “it is considered an 

encroachment on state court jurisdiction.” Johnson v. Washington, No. C07-0696-MJP, 
- 2 - 

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 

2007 WL 2377141, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 15, 2007). It authorizes removal where the 

defendant “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[.]” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1443(1). “This generally requires a state law or constitutional provision that denies the 

defendant an opportunity to raise a federal right.” Hollander v. S.F. County Super. Ct., 

No. C 09-519 SI (pr), 2009 WL 975428, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2009) (citing Johnson v. 

Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 220 (1975)). Mr. Corley has identified no state law or 

constitutional provision that denies him the opportunity to raise a federal right in state 

court, nor has he shown that he will be unable to enforce a federal right in state court. 

 Section 1443(2) authorizes removal “[f]or 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(2). The Supreme Court has 

construed this provision as conferring “‘a privilege of removal only upon federal officers 

or agents and those authorized to act with or for them in affirmatively executing duties 

under any federal law providing for equal civil rights.’” Gedo, 2009 WL 2848850, at *1 

(quoting City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 824 (1966)). This case does not 

fall within that category. 

IT IS ORDERED that all pending motions are denied and the Clerk shall remand 

this case to Superior Court. 

 Dated this 22nd day of January, 2018.