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

Anne Prafada, 

Defendant, 

v. 

State of Arizona, 

Plaintiff. 

No. CR-18-00357-PHX-DGC 

ORDER 

 

 

 Anne Prafada has attempted to remove her state criminal case to this Court. 

Doc. 1. The Court will remand the case. 

 Ms. Prafada is charged with the misdemeanor offense of failing to ensure that her 

child attended school for the number of days required by A.R.S. 15-802. See Arizona v. 

Prafada, JC2016-111542 (Maricopa Cty. Justice Ct. Mar. 10, 2016). It appears from the 

justice court’s docket that Ms. Prafada was found guilty after trial on July 20, 2017, but 

no judgment has been entered to date.1

 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)). 

 

1 See http://justicecourts.maricopa.gov/FindACase/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber= JC2016-111542 (last visited Mar. 20, 2018) 
- 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 

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.” Id. 

 Ms. Prafada cites 28 U.S.C. § 1443 as a statutory basis for removal. Doc. 1 

at 7, 58. A state prosecution may be removed to federal court under § 1443 only in 

narrow circumstances. Section 1443(1) authorizes removal where the criminal 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. Cty. 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)). 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, 2007 WL 2377141, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 15, 2007). Ms. Prafada 

asserts a host of alleged violations of federal law in her removal papers, but has identified 

no state law or constitutional provision that denies her the opportunity to raise a federal 

right in state court, nor has she shown that she 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. 

 The other federal statutes cited by Ms. Prafada do not provide a proper basis for 

removal jurisdiction. The Court therefore concludes that Ms. Prafada’s criminal case 
- 3 - 

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 

must be remanded.2

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

this case to Maricopa County Justice Court. 

 Dated this 22nd day of March, 2018. 

 

2

 It is worth noting that Ms. Prafada has filed a civil action that asserts many of the same alleged federal law violations that are set forth in her removal papers. See Prafada v. Mesa Unified Sch. Dist., No. CV-18-0718-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz. Mar. 9, 2018).