Unpublished Disposition, 842 F.2d 1294 (9th Cir. 1988)

 Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 842 F.2d 1294 (9th Cir. 1988)

Lyle H. PRENZLER, Petitioner-Appellant,v.ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, Appellee,State of California; Josephine Prenzler; Paul Blake; theBank of America; Wells Fargo Bank; National Bankof Bloomington, Illinois, Respondents- Appellees.

No. 86-6535.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 24, 1988.Decided: March 17, 1988.

Before BRUNETTI, KOZINSKI and DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM** 

Lyle Prenzler appeals pro se the district court's order denying his petition for removal and remanding his California criminal prosecution to state court.

We first consider whether we have jurisdiction to review the district court's remand order. In general, removal orders are not reviewable "by appeal or otherwise." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (1982). However, an exception exists where removal is based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) (1982). Prenzler's removal petition relies, in part, on section 1443. See Petition for Removal, Clerk's Record 1. Accordingly, we have authority to review the district court's remand order.

A state criminal prosecution may be removed within 30 days of arraignment or at any time before trial, whichever is earlier. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c) (1) (1982). After trial, however, a removal petition may be filed only if the district court, for good cause shown, grants leave to file a late petition. Id. Prenzler filed for removal only after he was tried and convicted. He failed to make any showing of good cause; indeed, he did not even allege good cause. The district court properly dismissed the petition as untimely.

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.