Opinion ID: 516086
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Removal of the Claims Against Baucus and Williams

Text: 8 We review removal jurisdiction de novo. Swett v. Schenk, 792 F.2d 1447, 1449 (9th Cir.1986).
Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1442(a)(1) (1982): 9 A civil action or criminal prosecution commenced in a State court against any of the following persons may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending: 10 (1) Any officer of the United States or any agency thereof, or person acting under him, for any act under color of such office or on account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress for the apprehension or punishment of criminals or the collection of the revenue. 11 Baucus and Williams as officers of the United States may remove an action from state to federal court. See Hill Parents Ass'n v. Giaimo, 287 F.Supp. 98, 99 (D.Conn.1968) (member of Congress is an Officer of the United States under Sec. 1442(a)(1)); Preston v. Edmondson, 263 F.Supp. 370, 372 (N.D.Okla.1967).
12 The claims against these defendants arose from their service as members of Congress. The statute allows removal for ... any act under color of such office.... See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1442(a)(1) (1982). They acted in their capacities as federal officers and they assert this as a defense. See Saul v. Larsen, 847 F.2d 573, 575 (9th Cir.1988); Swett, 792 F.2d at 1450. 13 We have some difficulty distilling the substance behind Richards' vague allegations. Nonetheless, her case appears to fall within the color of office test. Any claims outside this category were properly removed as pendent to the other claims. See Murphy v. Kodz, 351 F.2d 163, 166 (9th Cir.1965) (pendent jurisdiction where state claim so related to federal claim that it represents same cause of action).