THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. TILLY WINKS BRITTON BEY (2025)

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Pending before the Court is a notice of removal filed by self-represented Defendant Donald Ray Britton, identifying himself as Tilly Winks Britton-Bey. See Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1 (“Notice”). Defendant purports to remove his “ongoing state criminal matter.” Id. at 7. Having reviewed the notice of removal, the Court REMANDS this action to Contra Costa County Superior Court because the notice is untimely, and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Generally, a case may be removed from state court to federal court only if the federal court would have had subject matter jurisdiction over the case originally. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (“Only state-court actions that originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by the defendant.”). “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. See Provincial Gov't of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009). “The removal statute is strictly construed, and any doubt about the right of removal requires resolution in favor of remand.” Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009).

II. DISCUSSION

On January 25, 2024, Plaintiff, the People of the State of California, filed a criminal complaint, Case No. 01-24-00245, against Defendant in Contra Costa County Superior Court. See Notice Ex. B (“Complaint”). The criminal complaint charges four misdemeanor counts for violations of the California Vehicle Code and California Penal Code. See Complaint at 1-2. These charges arise from a traffic stop on July 27, 2023, during which Defendant allegedly resisted or obstructed California Highway Patrol officers, and was allegedly found in possession of a concealed, loaded firearm. On August 1, 2025, Defendant filed a notice attempting to remove the case to federal court, arguing that the Court has jurisdiction due to alleged violations of his constitutional rights. See Notice at 4. Plaintiff has not appeared in this action since it was removed to federal court.

As an initial matter, Defendant has not satisfied the procedural requirements for the removal of a state criminal prosecution to federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1455. Under Section 1455(b)(1), the notice of removal “shall be filed not later than 30 days after the arraignment in the State court, or at any time before trial, whichever is earlier,” except that the district court may allow a later filing “for good cause shown.” 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(1). “Section 1455(b)(4) requires the prompt examination by the district court of any notice of removal, and summary remand if it appears clearly from the notice that removal should not be permitted.” California v. Boyd, No. C 16-07299 JSW, 2017 WL 6049181, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2017).

Here, the state court docket indicates that Defendant was arraigned on February 16, 2024. See Notice Ex. C (Clerk's Docket reflecting arraignment date). Yet Defendant did not file a notice of removal until almost eighteen months later, on August 1, 2025, and Defendant does not provide any justification for the late filing. Given this deficiency on the face of Defendant's removal notice, and the lack of good cause for a late filing, summary remand is required. 28 U.S.C. § 1455(4); see also California v. Laine, No. 25-cv-03021-SI, 2025 WL 1403996, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2025) (concluding that summary remand was appropriate because notice of removal was untimely, and defendant had not shown good cause for late filing).

Moreover, even if Defendant had satisfied Section 1455, Defendant has failed to sufficiently allege any substantive basis for the Court to exercise jurisdiction over the underlying state case. A defendant may not remove a case to federal court “unless the plaintiff's complaint establishes that the case ‘arises under’ federal law.” Franchise Tax Board v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr., 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983)). Here, Plaintiff's complaint is a state criminal court complaint bringing charges under California state law. See Complaint at 1-2. An ongoing state prosecution may be removed to federal court only under the narrow circumstances set forth in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442, 1442a, and 1443. Section 1442 allows civil or criminal prosecutions commenced in state court to be removed to federal court if the underlying prosecution is against or directed to a federal officer or agency, a federal judicial officer, a federal legislator, or a property holder whose title is derived from a federal officer. See 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1-4). Section 1442a authorizes removal of state civil and criminal proceedings initiated against members of the United States armed forces. See id. § 1442a. These sections do not apply here, as Defendant has not alleged that he falls into any of these categories.

Section 1443 also does not apply. This provision authorizes removal of state criminal or civil cases brought: “(1) [a]gainst any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction thereof,” or “(2) [f]or any act under color of authority derived from any law providing for equal rights, or for refusing to do any act on the ground that it would be inconsistent with such law.” See id. § 1443. The latter provision, Section 1443(2), “ ‘is available only to federal officers and to persons assisting such officers in the performance of their official duties,’ and to state officers.” Sankary v. Ringgold-Lockhart, 611 F. App'x 893, 895 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 815, 824 n.22 (1966)). Defendant does not allege that he is a federal or state officer or a person assisting an officer in the performance of their duties.

Likewise, Defendant has not established jurisdiction under Section 1443(1). The Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit have limited removal under Section 1443(1) to cases where removal is predicated upon racial discrimination expressly codified in a state's law. See Baldini Real Est., Inc. v. Cruz, No. 15-cv-2932 YGR, 2015 WL 4760510, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2015) (citing Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 788-92 (1966), and then citing Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by BP P.L.C. v. Mayor of Baltimore, 593 U.S. 230 (2021)). A petition for removal under Section 1443(1) must satisfy a two-part test:

(1) “the petitioner must assert, as a defense to the [action], rights that are given to them by explicit statutory enactment protecting equal racial civil rights”; and (2) the “petitioner[ ] must assert that the state courts will not enforce that right,” with “reference to a state statute or a constitutional provision that purports to command the state courts to ignore the federal rights.”

Baldini, 2015 WL 4760510, at *2 (quoting Patel, 446 F.3d at 999). “Bad experiences with the particular court in question will not suffice” for Section 1443(1) removal. People of State of Cal. v. Sandoval, 434 F.2d 635, 636 (9th Cir. 1970) (per curiam).

In his notice of removal, Defendant argues that this Court has jurisdiction over the underlying state criminal case due to alleged “judicial bias and dismissiveness toward legal arguments.” Notice at 3. Accordingly, Defendant does not allege the violation of any statute explicitly protecting “equal racial civil rights,” and Defendant also fails to identify any California state statute or constitutional law commanding the state courts to ignore that right. See Sandoval, 434 F.2d at 636 (affirming denial of petition to remove state criminal prosecution under Section 1443 based on “broad protections of the First and Fourteenth Amendments” because “such rights are not within the coverage” of the statute).

Defendant relies on several other provisions, but none of them provide removal jurisdiction here. Defendant cites to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, but that provision relates to removal of civil actions only, not state criminal cases like this one. Defendant cites to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but that provision relates to civil actions that raise a question of federal law, and the underlying criminal case here raises questions of California state law. Defendant cites to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but that provision provides a cause of action – it does not authorize removal of a state-court criminal case. Finally, Defendant cites to 18 U.S.C. § 242, but that provision of the criminal code does not provide a civil cause of action, let alone a basis for removal.

III. CONCLUSION

The Court finds that Defendant has failed to meet the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1455 and his burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. The Court sua sponte REMANDS the case to Contra Costa County Superior Court. The Clerk is directed to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Eumi K. Lee United States District Judge