Dominguez v. People of the State of California

Background

Elijah Anthony Dominguez, identified as a pretrial detainee, filed a civil-rights complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He also asked to remove his state criminal prosecution to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1455. The court had previously dismissed his original complaint while allowing him to amend it, and Dominguez filed an amended complaint.

Dominguez alleged, among other things, inconsistent witness statements, biased police reports, unfavorable rulings by the state trial judge, denial of his request to represent himself, a finding that he was incompetent, editing of transcripts, and a conspiracy to violate his rights. The opinion states that he presented many allegations but little supporting evidence.

Court’s analysis

The court described the preliminary screening required for prisoner complaints seeking relief from a government entity or employee. At that stage, the court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a civil-rights claim under § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal right by someone acting under state law.

The court then addressed Dominguez’s request to remove the state criminal prosecution. It explained that § 1455 requires prompt review of a removal notice and summary remand when removal is clearly not permitted. The court stated that §§ 1442 and 1442a did not provide a basis for removal in this case. Removal under § 1443 required Dominguez to satisfy two conditions: the right allegedly denied had to arise under a federal law protecting specifically defined civil rights involving racial equality, and he had to show that the right was denied or could not be enforced in the state courts.

The court concluded that Dominguez did not meet the § 1443 requirements. It also relied on principles requiring federal courts to avoid interfering with ongoing state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances, such as bad faith or harassment by the state or a statute that is plainly unconstitutional in every application. The opinion states that Dominguez had not shown those circumstances.

Disposition

Judge James Donato ordered that the action be dismissed with prejudice. The court further ordered that all pending motions be denied as moot and directed the Clerk to close the case. The opinion does not identify the specific relief sought in each pending motion in the provided text.