The People of The State of California v. Alfred McZeal

C.D. California

The People of The State of California v. Alfred McZeal

DecidedApril 8, 2024

Docket8:24-cv-00089

StatusUnknown

This text of The People of The State of California v. Alfred McZeal (The People of The State of California v. Alfred McZeal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The People of The State of California v. Alfred McZeal, (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF Case No. 8:24-cv-00089-JWH-JDE CALIFORNIA, 12 ORDER REMANDING CASE TO Plaintiff, ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR 13 COURT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. v. § 1455(b)(4) 14 ALFRED MCZEAL, JR, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 On December 13, 2023, the People of the State of California filed in Orange County Superior Court and served upon Defendant Alfred McZeal, Jr., acriminal misdemeanor complaint for violating Tustin City Code § 5502(m)(3); 4|| McZeal’s arraignment was set for January 17, 2024. On January 16, 2024— one 5|| day before he was scheduled to be arraigned —McZeal removed this action to 6|| this Court, asserting federal question jurisdiction.* 7 Pursuant to federal removal statutes, the removal of criminal matters is 8 || permitted only for cases against federal officers or agencies or members of the 9|| armed forces as defendants. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442 & 1442a. When a criminal 10 || case has been removed to federal court, the federal district court must remand 11|| the action if removal was not proper. See 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(4). 12 Here, McZeal does not allege that he is, or was at the time of removal, a 13|| federal officer or member of the armed forces. Therefore, his removal of this 14|| case to this Court was not proper, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442 & 1442a, and this Court must remand the action, see 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(4). 16 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS that this action is 17 || REMANDED to Orange County Superior Court. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 Dated: April 8, 2024 MHA 21 GNITED $F RTRs DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 * See Notice of Removal [ECF No. 1] 10-11; cf People ex rel. Gallo ». Acuna, 14 Cal. 4th 1090, 1108-09 (1997) (“Acts or conduct which qualify as public nuisances are enjoinable as civil wrongs or prosecutable as criminal || misdemeanors... .”). || * See generally id.

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 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF Case No. 8:24-cv-00089-JWH-JDE CALIFORNIA, 12 ORDER REMANDING CASE TO Plaintiff, ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR 13 COURT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. v. § 1455(b)(4) 14 ALFRED MCZEAL, JR, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 On December 13, 2023, the People of the State of California filed in Orange County Superior Court and served upon Defendant Alfred McZeal, Jr., acriminal misdemeanor complaint for violating Tustin City Code § 5502(m)(3); 4|| McZeal’s arraignment was set for January 17, 2024. On January 16, 2024— one 5|| day before he was scheduled to be arraigned —McZeal removed this action to 6|| this Court, asserting federal question jurisdiction.* 7 Pursuant to federal removal statutes, the removal of criminal matters is 8 || permitted only for cases against federal officers or agencies or members of the 9|| armed forces as defendants. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442 & 1442a. When a criminal 10 || case has been removed to federal court, the federal district court must remand 11|| the action if removal was not proper. See 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(4). 12 Here, McZeal does not allege that he is, or was at the time of removal, a 13|| federal officer or member of the armed forces. Therefore, his removal of this 14|| case to this Court was not proper, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442 & 1442a, and this Court must remand the action, see 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(4). 16 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS that this action is 17 || REMANDED to Orange County Superior Court. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 Dated: April 8, 2024 MHA 21 GNITED $F RTRs DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 * See Notice of Removal [ECF No. 1] 10-11; cf People ex rel. Gallo ». Acuna, 14 Cal. 4th 1090, 1108-09 (1997) (“Acts or conduct which qualify as public nuisances are enjoinable as civil wrongs or prosecutable as criminal || misdemeanors... .”). || * See generally id.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

The People of The State of California v. Alfred McZeal, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-people-of-the-state-of-california-v-alfred-mczeal-cacd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack