Court Opinion

ID: 9450862
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:59:49.105757+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:28.938300
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
These cases concern petitions for removal based on alleged violations of civil rights under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) and (2).1 In this court appellants abandoned their theory that “by reason of public hostility, precipitous trial and other circumstances attending the state prosecutions, defendants could not obtain a fair trial in the state courts.”
Appellants’ claim under § 1443(2) is without foundation on its face. As stated in People of State of New York v. Galamison, 342 F.2d 255, 264 (2 Cir. 1965), cert. den., 85 S.Ct. 1342, April 26, 1965.
“A private person claiming the benefit of §1443(2) *' * * must point to some law that directs or encourages him to act in a certain manner, not merely to a generalized constitutional provision that will give him a defense or to an equally general statute that may impose civil or criminal liability on persons interfering with him.”
Admittedly appellants cannot come within § 1443(1) unless they have been denied or cannot enforce their alleged “federally protected equal civil rights in the state courts * * No showing has been made by appellants to that effect. Galamison, supra, pp. 266, 267; Rachel v. State of Georgia, 342 F. 2d 336, 340 (5 Cir.1965).
The order of remand will be affirmed.

. “§ 1443. Civil rights cases
“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 for 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.”