Case Name: Kenneth BRADFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant v. State of LOUISIANA, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-09
Citations: 235 F. App'x 313
Docket Number: No. 06-30523
Parties: Kenneth BRADFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant v. State of LOUISIANA, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 313–314

Head Matter:
Kenneth BRADFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant v. State of LOUISIANA, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 06-30523
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 9, 2007.
Kenneth R. Bradford, Seotlandville, LA, pro se.
Kathleen Elizabeth Petersen, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Bradford, a Georgia prisoner, appeals the district court's orders remanding his Louisiana state criminal prosecutions to Louisiana state court and denying reconsideration. The district court remanded the action after determining that Bradford had failed to satisfy the procedural requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1446 by filing an untimely notice of removal. See § 1446(c)(1).
Section 1446(c)(1) provides that a notice of removal of a criminal case must "be filed not later than thirty days after the arraignment in the State court, or at any time before trial, whichever is earlier, except that for good cause shown the United States district court may enter an order granting the defendant . leave to file the notice at a later time." Bradford does not challenge the district court's determination that his notice of removal was not filed within 30 days of arraignment. Instead, Bradford argues that in the light of his allegations of civil rights violations, including racial discrimination, by the State Attorney General's Office, the district court erred in dismissing his notice of removal and remanding without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Because Bradford has wholly failed to demonstrate good cause for filing an untimely notice of removal, we find no error. See § 1446(c)(1).
The district court's decision is AFFIRMED; motion for a stay of state court proceedings DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.