The People of the State of California v. Laine

Background

Joshua Laine filed a notice seeking to remove a criminal prosecution from the Superior Court for the County of San Joaquin to the United States District Court. The second amended consolidated criminal complaint described the matter as a domestic-violence case and charged Laine with violating California Penal Code section 653m(a), involving annoying, obscene, or threatening phone calls, and section 166(a)(4), involving disobedience of a court order. The notice stated that Laine was representing himself.

Laine also applied to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the federal filing fee. The court found that he could not pay the fee and granted that application.

Reasons for Remand

Under 28 U.S.C. section 1455(b)(4), a federal court must promptly examine a notice seeking removal of a state criminal prosecution and summarily remand the case if the notice and attached materials clearly show that removal is not permitted.

The court first ruled that Laine’s removal notice was untimely. Section 1455(b)(1) generally requires a notice of removal in a criminal prosecution to be filed no later than 30 days after arraignment or before trial, whichever is earlier. The court reviewed the publicly available state-court docket, which showed that Laine had been arraigned four times, most recently on September 19, 2024. Assuming without deciding that the most recent arraignment was the proper date for calculating the deadline, Laine filed his notice on April 2, 2025—186 days later. The court found no good cause to extend the deadline.

The court separately ruled that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority over, the criminal case. State criminal cases may be removed only in limited circumstances under 28 U.S.C. sections 1442, 1442a, and 1443. Laine relied on section 1443, which applies narrowly when a defendant claims certain federally protected equal racial civil rights as a defense and asserts that the state courts will not enforce those rights. Laine did not identify a state law or constitutional provision that would prevent him from raising a federal right in state court, and he did not claim that his racial civil rights had been violated.

Laine instead asserted violations involving his First Amendment rights, evidence and discovery, fair hearings, alleged witness and evidence tampering, alleged judicial misconduct and retaliation, and obstruction of familial association. The court concluded that these assertions did not satisfy section 1443. The court also rejected federal-question and diversity jurisdiction as bases for removal because those removal provisions apply to civil cases. The court noted that Laine was not a federal officer or a member of the armed forces being prosecuted for acts covered by sections 1442 or 1442a.

Disposition

The court granted Laine’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. It ordered the Clerk to remand the case to the Superior Court for the County of San Joaquin and close the federal file. The order addressed the timeliness and legal basis for removal; it did not decide the criminal charges or the merits of Laine’s other allegations.