1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF No. 2:25-cv-01159-DAD-SCR CALIFORNIA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION v. 14 ANALEAH GONSHOROWSKI, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Defendant Analeah Gonshorowski is proceeding in this action pro se, which is referred to 19 the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On April 20 21, 2025, Defendant commenced this action by filing a notice of removal of a criminal action 21 from the Yuba County Superior Court and filing a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 22 ECF Nos. 1 & 2. It appears from the notice of removal that Defendant seeks to improperly 23 remove a state court criminal proceeding that was filed in 2022. The undersigned recommends 24 that this action be remanded to state court. 25 The motion to proceed IFP avers that Plaintiff is unable to pay the costs of these 26 proceedings. However, as the undersigned recommends this action be summarily remanded, the 27 undersigned will also recommend that the motion to proceed IFP be denied as moot. 28 1 I. Procedural History and Defendant’s Prior Actions 2 The Court takes judicial notice that the state court criminal action Defendant seeks to 3 remove, People v. Gonshorowski, CRF22-00973-02 (Yuba Cty. Sup. Ct.), was filed on May 9, 4 2022.1 The arraignment was originally scheduled for August 3, 2022. Defendant has previously 5 attempted to remove this case to federal court on two occasions. Defendant first filed a notice of 6 removal on January 9, 2023, in Case No. 2:23-cv-00033-TLN-DB. On April 25, 2023, 7 Magistrate Judge Barnes issued an order to show cause why the action should not be remanded. 8 ECF No. 4. Gonshorowski filed a response, and Judge Barnes then issued Findings and 9 Recommendations (“F&R”) that the action be remanded on November 27, 2023. ECF No. 7. 10 Judge Nunley adopted the F&R and remanded the action on March 19, 2024. ECF No. 8. 11 While that action was pending, Defendant filed a second notice of removal on January 24, 12 2023, in Case No. 2:23-cv-00145-TLN-AC. On April 27, 2023, Magistrate Judge Claire issued 13 an F&R recommending dismissal of the action with prejudice. ECF No. 6. The plain language 14 pro se summary portion of the F&R stated: “The magistrate judge recommends that this case be 15 dismissed with prejudice because you cannot ‘remove’ a state criminal prosecution to federal 16 court. You also cannot sue in federal court to stop a state criminal prosecution.” ECF No. 6 at 5. 17 The F&R also explained that in “rare” instances a state criminal action could be removed under 18 28 U.S.C. § 1443. Id. at 3. However, in order to do so, two criteria must be satisfied: 1) the party 19 seeking removal must assert, as a defense to the prosecution, rights that are given to them by 20 explicit statutory enactment protecting equal racial civil rights; and 2) that the state courts will not 21 enforce that right, and that allegation must be supported by reference to a state statute or 22 constitutional provision. Id., citing People of the State of California v. Sandoval, 434 F.2d 635, 23 636 (9th Cir. 1970). The F&R advised Gonshorowski that she did not meet this criteria: “Nothing 24 in the notice of removal or its attachments suggests that she is defending her state case on grounds 25 of an explicit federal statutory enactment protecting equal racial civil rights, or that the state court 26 is refusing to enforce such rights.” Id. at 3-4. Judge Nunley adopted the F&R and dismissed the 27 1 The docket sheet is publicly available on the Yuba County Superior Court’s website, at Online 28 Case Access | Superior Court of California | County of Yuba 1 action. ECF No. 9. Gonshorowski appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which summarily affirmed on 2 April 25, 2024. ECF No. 14. 3 Now, approximately one year after the Ninth Circuit summarily affirmed the dismissal of 4 her improper removal, Gonshorowski again seeks to remove the state court criminal proceeding. 5 II. The Notice of Removal 6 The instant Notice of Removal (“Notice”) (ECF No. 1) cites to several federal statutes, 7 including 28 U.S.C. § 1443. However, once again Defendant does not assert any of the required 8 criteria for removal under § 1443. See Sandoval, 434 F.2d at 636. Much of the Notice is 9 dedicated to discussing administrative law and requesting Administrative Procedure Act review. 10 ECF No. 1 at 4-8. The Notice is also procedurally improper. It does not attach “a copy of all 11 process, pleadings, and orders” from the state court action. 28 U.S.C. § 1455(a). Further, it was 12 not filed within 30 days of arraignment, as required by § 1455(b)(1). 13 Pursuant to § 1455(b)(4), when a notice attempting to remove a criminal case is filed, the 14 Court must examine it “promptly” and “if it clearly appears on the face of the notice and any 15 exhibits annexed thereto that removal should not be permitted,” the Court shall then remand the 16 action. Jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry that must precede the adjudication of any case before 17 the district court. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 18 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may adjudicate 19 only those cases authorized by federal law. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 20 377 (1994); Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 136-37 (1992). “Federal courts are presumed 21 to lack jurisdiction, ‘unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.’” Casey v. Lewis, 22 4 F.3d 1516, 1519 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 23 546 (1986)). 24 Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised by the court at any time during the 25 proceedings. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Prods., Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 26 1996). A federal court “ha[s] an independent obligation to address sua sponte whether [it] has 27 subject-matter jurisdiction.” Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 1999). It is the 28 obligation of the district court “to be alert to jurisdictional requirements.” Grupo Dataflux v. 1 Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004). Without jurisdiction, the district court 2 cannot decide the merits of a case or order any relief. See Morongo, 858 F.2d at 1380. 3 “The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction” means that “the court resolves all 4 ambiguity in favor of remand to state court.” Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 5 (9th Cir. 2009). That is, federal jurisdiction over a removed case “must be rejected if there is any 6 doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF No. 2:25-cv-01159-DAD-SCR CALIFORNIA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION v. 14 ANALEAH GONSHOROWSKI, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Defendant Analeah Gonshorowski is proceeding in this action pro se, which is referred to 19 the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On April 20 21, 2025, Defendant commenced this action by filing a notice of removal of a criminal action 21 from the Yuba County Superior Court and filing a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 22 ECF Nos. 1 & 2. It appears from the notice of removal that Defendant seeks to improperly 23 remove a state court criminal proceeding that was filed in 2022. The undersigned recommends 24 that this action be remanded to state court. 25 The motion to proceed IFP avers that Plaintiff is unable to pay the costs of these 26 proceedings. However, as the undersigned recommends this action be summarily remanded, the 27 undersigned will also recommend that the motion to proceed IFP be denied as moot. 28 1 I. Procedural History and Defendant’s Prior Actions 2 The Court takes judicial notice that the state court criminal action Defendant seeks to 3 remove, People v. Gonshorowski, CRF22-00973-02 (Yuba Cty. Sup. Ct.), was filed on May 9, 4 2022.1 The arraignment was originally scheduled for August 3, 2022. Defendant has previously 5 attempted to remove this case to federal court on two occasions. Defendant first filed a notice of 6 removal on January 9, 2023, in Case No. 2:23-cv-00033-TLN-DB. On April 25, 2023, 7 Magistrate Judge Barnes issued an order to show cause why the action should not be remanded. 8 ECF No. 4. Gonshorowski filed a response, and Judge Barnes then issued Findings and 9 Recommendations (“F&R”) that the action be remanded on November 27, 2023. ECF No. 7. 10 Judge Nunley adopted the F&R and remanded the action on March 19, 2024. ECF No. 8. 11 While that action was pending, Defendant filed a second notice of removal on January 24, 12 2023, in Case No. 2:23-cv-00145-TLN-AC. On April 27, 2023, Magistrate Judge Claire issued 13 an F&R recommending dismissal of the action with prejudice. ECF No. 6. The plain language 14 pro se summary portion of the F&R stated: “The magistrate judge recommends that this case be 15 dismissed with prejudice because you cannot ‘remove’ a state criminal prosecution to federal 16 court. You also cannot sue in federal court to stop a state criminal prosecution.” ECF No. 6 at 5. 17 The F&R also explained that in “rare” instances a state criminal action could be removed under 18 28 U.S.C. § 1443. Id. at 3. However, in order to do so, two criteria must be satisfied: 1) the party 19 seeking removal must assert, as a defense to the prosecution, rights that are given to them by 20 explicit statutory enactment protecting equal racial civil rights; and 2) that the state courts will not 21 enforce that right, and that allegation must be supported by reference to a state statute or 22 constitutional provision. Id., citing People of the State of California v. Sandoval, 434 F.2d 635, 23 636 (9th Cir. 1970). The F&R advised Gonshorowski that she did not meet this criteria: “Nothing 24 in the notice of removal or its attachments suggests that she is defending her state case on grounds 25 of an explicit federal statutory enactment protecting equal racial civil rights, or that the state court 26 is refusing to enforce such rights.” Id. at 3-4. Judge Nunley adopted the F&R and dismissed the 27 1 The docket sheet is publicly available on the Yuba County Superior Court’s website, at Online 28 Case Access | Superior Court of California | County of Yuba 1 action. ECF No. 9. Gonshorowski appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which summarily affirmed on 2 April 25, 2024. ECF No. 14. 3 Now, approximately one year after the Ninth Circuit summarily affirmed the dismissal of 4 her improper removal, Gonshorowski again seeks to remove the state court criminal proceeding. 5 II. The Notice of Removal 6 The instant Notice of Removal (“Notice”) (ECF No. 1) cites to several federal statutes, 7 including 28 U.S.C. § 1443. However, once again Defendant does not assert any of the required 8 criteria for removal under § 1443. See Sandoval, 434 F.2d at 636. Much of the Notice is 9 dedicated to discussing administrative law and requesting Administrative Procedure Act review. 10 ECF No. 1 at 4-8. The Notice is also procedurally improper. It does not attach “a copy of all 11 process, pleadings, and orders” from the state court action. 28 U.S.C. § 1455(a). Further, it was 12 not filed within 30 days of arraignment, as required by § 1455(b)(1). 13 Pursuant to § 1455(b)(4), when a notice attempting to remove a criminal case is filed, the 14 Court must examine it “promptly” and “if it clearly appears on the face of the notice and any 15 exhibits annexed thereto that removal should not be permitted,” the Court shall then remand the 16 action. Jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry that must precede the adjudication of any case before 17 the district court. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 18 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may adjudicate 19 only those cases authorized by federal law. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 20 377 (1994); Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 136-37 (1992). “Federal courts are presumed 21 to lack jurisdiction, ‘unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.’” Casey v. Lewis, 22 4 F.3d 1516, 1519 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 23 546 (1986)). 24 Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised by the court at any time during the 25 proceedings. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Prods., Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 26 1996). A federal court “ha[s] an independent obligation to address sua sponte whether [it] has 27 subject-matter jurisdiction.” Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 1999). It is the 28 obligation of the district court “to be alert to jurisdictional requirements.” Grupo Dataflux v. 1 Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004). Without jurisdiction, the district court 2 cannot decide the merits of a case or order any relief. See Morongo, 858 F.2d at 1380. 3 “The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction” means that “the court resolves all 4 ambiguity in favor of remand to state court.” Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 5 (9th Cir. 2009). That is, federal jurisdiction over a removed case “must be rejected if there is any 6 doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of 7 Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010). “If at any time prior to judgment it appears that the 8 district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); 9 Gibson v. Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d 927, 932 (9th Cir. 2001). Remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) 10 “is mandatory, not discretionary.” Bruns v. NCUA, 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997); see also 11 California ex. rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004). Where it appears, 12 as it does here, that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a removed case, “the 13 case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 14 Here, Defendant has not shown that removal of this action to federal court is appropriate. 15 Defendant is attempting to remove a state criminal proceeding, and her attempts to do so have 16 been rejected on two prior occasions. Remand of this case to the Yuba County Superior Court is 17 mandatory. See 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(4); see also California v. Schaupp, 2023 WL 3931747 at *5 18 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2023) (finding the “notice of removal fails to satisfy the procedural or 19 substantive requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1455” and summarily remanding); Richson-Bey v. 20 California, 2023 WL 2947373 (E.D. Cal. April 14, 2023) (summary remand under § 1455(b)(4)). 21 III. Conclusion 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED: 23 1. That this action be remanded forthwith to the Yuba County Superior Court, pursuant 24 to 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(4), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; 25 2. The Clerk of this Court send a copy of this order to the clerk of the Yuba County 26 Superior Court; 27 3. Defendant’s motion to proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) be DENIED AS MOOT; and 28 4. The Clerk of this Court close this file. ] These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 2 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 3 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, either party may file written 4 || objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's 5 || Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 6 || specified time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. 7 | Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 8 | Dated: April 28, 2025 9 10
1] SEAN C. RIORDAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28