Macomber
Hawaii v. Macomber
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Norman Macomber appeals pro se the district court’s sua sponte order remanding his action to state court for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Because Macomber removed the criminal action against him pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (1), we have jurisdiction to review the remand order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (d). We review de novo the district court decision to remand, Hellon & Assoc., Inc. v. Phoenix Resort Corp., 958 F.2d 295 , 297 (9th Cir.1992), and we affirm.
A criminal defendant claiming federally secured rights as a defense to a state prosecution may remove that prosecution to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (1); California v. Sandoval, 434 F.2d 635, 636 (9th Cir.1971) (per curiam). All petitions for removal under § 1443(1) must satisfy two criteria:
Sandoval, 434 F.2d at 636 (internal citations omitted). Although Macomber claims protection from criminal prosecution by the State of Hawaii under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920 and the Admissions Act of 1959, nothing in those Acts protect “equal racial civil rights” or render Macomber immune from prosecution. State v. Lorenzo, 77 Hawaii 219 , 883 P.2d 641, 643-44 (Haw.1994); United…