The People of the State of California v. Sarkisova

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 15, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00072
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF Case No.: 25-cv-72-JES-SBC CALIFORNIA, 12 ORDER: Plaintiff, 13 v. (1) REMANDING CASE FOR LACK 14 OF SUBJECT MATTER DINA D. SARKISOVA, 15 JURISDICTION; and Defendant. 16 (2) DENYING MOTION TO 17 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS MOOT 18

19 [ECF No. 2]

20 21 On May 3, 2023, the People of the State of California filed a criminal complaint 22 against Defendant Dina D. Sarkisova in the Superior Court of California for the County of 23 San Diego, North County Division. ECF No. 1-2. On January 13, 2025, Defendant filed a 24 Notice of Removal to this federal court. ECF No. 1. 25 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 26 (2013). A federal court is constitutionally required to raise issues of federal subject matter 27 jurisdiction, sua sponte if necessary, and must satisfy itself of jurisdiction before 28 proceeding to the merits of a case. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006); 1 Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 625 U.S. 574, 577 (1999). The removal statute provides 2 that “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject 3 matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). In a removed case, 4 since Defendant is the party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of this court, Defendant 5 bears the burden to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. Thompson v. McCombe, 6 99 F.3d 352, 353 (9th Cir. 1996). 7 Criminal state court actions are removable to federal court only under limited 8 circumstances set out in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442, 1442a, and 1443. California v. Smith, No. 24- 9 CV-1629-WQH-JLB, 2024 WL 4227050, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2024). In her removal 10 notice, Defendant claims subject matter jurisdiction under § 1443, arguing that her 11 constitutional rights are being violated, in particular her Due Process and Sixth Amendment 12 rights. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 1-2. 13 Section 1443 permits criminal prosecutions commenced in state court to be removed 14 to federal court in two limited circumstances. First, § 1443(1) permits removal where 15 Defendant is “denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under any law 16 providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States or of all persons within 17 the jurisdiction thereof.” 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). To remove under this provision, a defendant 18 must first show that he (1) “asserts, as a defense to the prosecution, rights that are given to 19 [him] by explicit statutory enactment protecting equal racial civil rights,” and then, 20 importantly, he must also show that (2) “the state courts will not enforce that right.” 21 Hankins v. Bryant, No. 23cv0064 JAH-BGS, 2023 WL 2254918, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 22 2023) (quoting California v. Sandoval, 434 F.2d 635, 636 (9th Cir. 1970)); see Johnson v. 23 Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 219 (1975). As to the latter part, “that allegation must be 24 supported by reference to a state statute or a constitutional provision that purports to 25 command the state courts to ignore the federal rights.” Hankins, 2023 WL 2254918, at *1. 26 Here, Defendant only alleges certain broad constitutional rights being violated, not 27 based on any “statutory enactment protecting equal racial civil rights.” See Sandoval, 434 28 F.2d at 636 (broad protections of the First and Fourteenth Amendments do not fall within | the coverage of 1443). Thus, Defendant fails to meet the first part of the showing required. 2 Further, Defendant also fails to point to any enactment of a California statute or 3 || constitutional provision that commands the state court to ignore those federal equal racial 4 civil rights. Thus, Defendant does not successfully show jurisdiction under § 1443(1). 5 Second, § 1443(2) permits removal “[flor 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 7 || would be inconsistent with such law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1443(2). This removal provision □□□□□ 8 || available only to federal officers and to persons assisting such officers in the performance ? |! of their official duties,’ and to state officers.” McCullough v. Evans, 600 F. App’x 577, 578 10 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting City of Greenwood y. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 815, 824 n.22 I] (1966)). Nothing in Defendant’s notice of removal supports jurisdiction under this 12 provision either. 13 Thus, having failed to meet her burden to establish that this Court has federal court 14 subject matter jurisdiction over the case, it is hereby ORDERED that the action is 15 || REMANDED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, to 16 |I the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego, North County Division, 17 || where the case was originally filed. Defendant’s concurrently filed motion to proceed in 18 |! forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED AS MOOT. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: January 15, 2025 A 7 ol 7] he A i. 22 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr. 53 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28