Soloman v. The People of the State of California
- Charles Breyer
- 3:23-cv-04638
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Soloman v. The People, Judge Breyer dismissed and remanded the attempted removal for lack of jurisdiction but granted permission to proceed without fees.
Nebiyu Shefrew Soloman’s attempted removal of his pending Sonoma County Superior Court criminal prosecution was dismissed and remanded to the state-court proceeding; his request to proceed without paying filing fees was granted.
What happened
Soloman v. The People of the State of California involved Nebiyu Shefrew Soloman’s attempt to move his pending state criminal prosecution from Sonoma County Superior Court to federal court. He was representing himself and argued that federal removal law applied, including allegations of racial discrimination.
The court found that Soloman did not meet the required filing procedures or show that California courts could not protect a specific federal civil-rights protection based on racial equality. Because the federal court lacked authority over the requested removal, it dismissed and remanded the removal of the state case.
Judge Charles R. Breyer granted Soloman’s request to proceed without paying filing fees based solely on his affidavit of poverty.
The detailed version
- Soloman v. The People of the State of California · No. 3:23-cv-04638
- Charles Breyer
- Nov. 9, 2023
Background
Nebiyu Shefrew Soloman, identified as a pretrial detainee committed to Atascadero State Hospital for treatment under California Penal Code section 1370, filed a notice seeking to remove his pending state criminal prosecution to federal court. The prosecution was filed in Sonoma County Superior Court on December 28, 2021, in Case No. SCR-751256-1. Soloman represented himself.
He relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1443, a statute that allows certain state civil actions or criminal prosecutions to be moved to federal court when the defendant cannot enforce specified federal equal-rights protections in state court. The court also considered the procedural requirements in 28 U.S.C. § 1455, including filing a verified notice, attaching the state-court pleadings, and meeting the applicable filing deadline.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that a person seeking removal under § 1443 must satisfy both procedural requirements and a two-part legal test. The claimed right must arise under a federal law providing specific civil rights stated in terms of racial equality. The person must also show that the right cannot be enforced in state court because a state law or constitutional provision prevents raising it there.
The court concluded that Soloman satisfied neither the procedural requirements nor the two-part test. It characterized his complaints about the handling of his state criminal case by his public defender, the prosecutor, and the presiding judge, along with his general allegations of racial discrimination, as insufficient to meet the federal removal standard. The court also cited its conclusion that civil-rights claims arising under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 do not fall within § 1443’s coverage.
Disposition
The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the requested removal. It ordered that the notice of removal of Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCR-751256-1 be DISMISSED and REMANDED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Separately, the court GRANTED Soloman’s motion for leave to proceed without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, based solely on his affidavit of poverty.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.