Patel

Inland Valley Development Agency v. Patel

Good Law
116 F. App'x 98
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 4, 2004No. 03-55308California709 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Appellants Vibhakerbhai B. Patel, Vimalaben V. Patel, Praful B. Patel, Nimben P. Patel, and Vijay B. Patel appeal the district court’s order sua sponte remanding to state court an eminent domain action brought by Appellee Inland Valley Development Agency. The Patels removed the action to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443 ; therefore, we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (d). We review de novo, Nebraska ex rel. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Bentson, 146 F.3d 676, 678 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.

Section 1443 provides an avenue for removal of a case commenced in state court against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in state court a right under any law providing for equal civil rights. A successful petition for removal brought pursuant to section 1443 must satisfy two criteria. First, petitioners must assert rights allegedly denied them that arise under a federal law “providing for specific civil rights stated in terms of racial equality.” Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 219 , 95 S.Ct. 1591 , 44 L.Ed.2d 121 (1975) (citing Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 792 , 86 S.Ct. 1783 , 16 L.Ed.2d 925 (1966)). Second, petitioners must assert that…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.