Dominguez v. People of the State of California

Background

Elijah Anthony Dominguez, identified as a pretrial detainee, filed a complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He also filed a motion seeking to remove his state criminal prosecution to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1455. The court had granted him permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Screening of the Complaint

The court screened the complaint under the federal statute requiring an initial review of prisoner cases against governmental entities or officials. The court explained that a complaint must provide enough factual information to state a plausible claim for relief. A claim under § 1983 requires allegations that a federal constitutional or statutory right was violated by someone acting under state law.

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend to provide more information. It stated that any request to remove the state criminal prosecution had to satisfy the applicable federal removal standards. It also stated that any request for federal intervention in the state prosecution had to show extraordinary circumstances, consistent with the general rule against federal interference with ongoing state criminal proceedings.

Removal of the State Prosecution

The court explained that the federal removal statute provides the procedure for removing a state criminal case, while the substantive grounds for removal come from other federal statutes. Removal under the statute covering prosecutions involving federal officers or agencies did not apply because the case did not involve that type of prosecution. Removal under the civil-rights statute is limited and requires showing both that the asserted right arises under a federal law protecting specific civil rights stated in terms of racial equality and that the right is denied or cannot be enforced in the state courts. The court also explained that allegations of false charges, corrupt officials, or an unfair trial generally are not enough because state courts are ordinarily expected to protect federal rights.

Mandamus Motion

The court denied Dominguez’s motion for a writ of mandamus. Mandamus is an order directing an official or court to perform or refrain from performing a particular duty. The court held that federal district courts lack power to issue mandamus directing state courts, state judicial officers, or other state officials in carrying out their duties.

Disposition

The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. The amended complaint had to be filed within 35 days of the order and had to include all claims Dominguez wanted to pursue; the court stated that failing to amend within that period would result in dismissal of the case. The court denied Dominguez’s motions on Docket Nos. 3, 4, 8, and 12, while allowing him to present arguments concerning those motions in an amended complaint. It denied the motion on Docket No. 13 as moot because he had already been granted permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. Judge James Donato also stated that Dominguez was responsible for prosecuting the case and notifying the court of any address change.