PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY OF GUAM, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE,
v.
CONRADO V. TENDIDO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the dismissal of the petition for removal, finding that the criminal case could not have been removed to a federal district court.
The defendant sought to remove a murder case from the territorial superior court of Guam to federal court, claiming the judge should recuse himself be…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Civil Rights Removal cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1192] ORDER
Before CHAMBERS and ELY, Circuit Judges, and CURTIS,* District Judge.
The district court dismissed the petition of removal in this murder case from the new territorial superior court in Guam. The petition of removal was based on defendant’s claim that as the Guam territorial judge’s son had been recently murdered, the judge should not hear this case. We affirm the order dismissing the petition of removal.
We simply do not reach the question of whether any removals to the District Court of Guam are permissible. This criminal case could not have been removed to a federal district court in any of the fifty states. There is no civil rights aspect to the case that would bring 28 U.S.C. § 1443 into play. See Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 86 S.Ct. 1783, 16 L.Ed.2d 925 (1965).
The removal case issue should be settled. We find that Jones & Guerrero Co., Inc. v. Sealift Pacific, No. 75-3121, in our backlog, a diversity case, is likely to permit resolution of the question. We are proceeding to expedite.