People of the State of California v. Khan
- Jeffrey White
- 4:20-cv-09274
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
People of California v. Khan: Judge White granted the fee waiver and recommended sending Khan’s removed criminal case back to state court.
The People of the State of California and David Khan. The ruling concerns whether Khan’s state criminal case may proceed in federal court or should be returned to state court.
What happened
People of the State of California v. Khan concerns David Khan’s attempt to move his state criminal case to federal court. The court granted California’s application to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court concluded that Khan did not show that federal law allowed him to remove the criminal case under the statute he cited. It recommended sending the case back to state court and reassigned the case to a district judge.
Judge White’s order gave the parties 14 days to object to the recommendation. The classification of the ruling is procedural because it concerns whether the case could be removed, not the underlying criminal charges.
The detailed version
- People of the State of California v. Khan · No. 4:20-cv-09274
- Jeffrey White
- Jan. 13, 2021
Background
David Khan removed his state criminal case to federal court on December 17, 2020. The People of the State of California filed an application to proceed without paying filing fees.
Court’s analysis
The court granted the application. Khan said that removal was authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1443, a statute that permits removal of certain state criminal cases involving federally protected equal civil rights.
The court explained that the second part of § 1443 applies only to federal officers, federal agents, or people authorized to act with or for them while carrying out duties under federal equal-rights laws. Khan did not claim to fall within that category.
The court also concluded that Khan did not satisfy the requirements of the first part of § 1443. That provision requires a defendant to identify a federally protected civil right based on a specific statutory enactment as a defense to the prosecution and to show that the state courts will not enforce that right, supported by a state law or constitutional provision requiring them to disregard the federal right.
Khan did not identify a specific statutory civil right as a defense or a state enactment directing the state court to ignore his federal rights. The court said that his allegations of malicious prosecution, court-record tampering, inhumane jail treatment, false charges, or inability to receive a fair trial in the state court were not enough to support removal under § 1443.
Disposition
The court reassigned the case to a district judge and recommended that it be remanded to state court for failure to establish a basis for removal. The order allowed any party to object to the report and recommendation within 14 days after being served. The opinion does not state that the district judge had already entered a final remand order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.