Santiago D. Medrano v. State of Texas, 580 F.2d 803 (5th Cir. 1978). · Go Syfert
Search
Santiago D. Medrano v. State of Texas, 580 F.2d 803 (5th Cir. 1978). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
30 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 20 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Vasquez v. Gateway First Bank, No. 5:24-cv-00726 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 21, 2024)
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980 2003 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 804 Determining timing of removal under federal statute13 citing casesholding that state court's constructive notice of petition of removal is sufficient to deprive it of jurisdiction, making further proceedings void, despite defendant’s failure-to file copy of removal petition in state court2 citing courts put it this way · 12 listed here
  • Vasquez v. Gateway First Bank, No. 5:24-cv-00726 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 21, 2024).
    Tex. July 7, 2010) (citing Butler v. King, 781 F.2d 486, 489 (5th Cir.1986) and Medrano v. State of Texas, 580 F.2d 803, 804 (5th Cir.1978)).
  • Hampton v. Houston Specialty Ins. Co., No. 2:21-cv-01667 (E.D. La. Dec. 2, 2021).
    Murray v. Ford Motor Co., 770 F.2d 461, 463 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Medrano v. State of Texas, 580 F.2d 803, 804 (5th Cir. 1978)).
  • Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Milasinovich, 161 F. Supp. 3d 981 (D.N.M. 2016).published
    See 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (d); Medrano v. State of Tex., 580 F.2d 803, 804 (5th Cir.1978)(“[T]here was no notice to the state court judge until the state received the order to show cause.
  • Davis v. Est. of Harrison, 214 F. Supp. 2d 695 (S.D. Miss. 2002).published
    In Medrano v. Texas, 580 F.2d 803, 804 (5th Cir.1978), we held that the state court continues to have jurisdiction until it has been given actual or constructive notice of removal....
  • Matsch v. Prairie Island Indian Cmty., 559 N.W.2d 128 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997).published
    Medrano v. State of Texas, 580 F.2d 803, 804 (5th Cir.1978).
  • Charles Butler v. John T. King, Sec'y of Louisiana Dep't of Corr. & William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney Gen., State of Louisiana, 781 F.2d 486 (5th Cir. 1986).published
    Co., 770 F.2d 545, 547 (5th Cir.1985); Medrano v. Texas, 580 F.2d 803, 804 (5th Cir.1978); Adair Pipeline Co. v. Pipeliners Local Union No. 798, 203 F.Supp. 434, 437 (S.D.Tex.1962) (presentation of removal petition to judge in open court s…
  • Murray v. Ford Motor Co., 770 F.2d 461 (5th Cir. 1985).published 2 cites
    The court found that removal had taken place before the order setting aside the default judgment in state court had been made. 9 In Medrano v. Texas, 580 F.2d 803, 804 (5th Cir.1978), we held that the state court continues to have jurisdic…
  • Windac Corp. v. Clarke, 530 F. Supp. 812 (D. Neb. 1982).published
    In Medrano v. Texas, 580 F.2d 803, 804 (C.A. 5th Cir. 1978), the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld a state court conviction after a criminal trial, where the defendant had sought to remove a criminal action.
  • Peterson v. BMI Refractories, 124 F.3d 1386 (11th Cir. 1997).published
    See Medrano v. State of Texas, 580 F.2d 803, 804 (5th Cir.1978) (dicta) (observing that either actual or constructive notice is “sufficient to deprive the state court of jurisdiction” in a removed case). *1395 More importantly, failure of…
  • Peterson v. BMI Refractories, Inc., 938 F. Supp. 767 (N.D. Ala. 1996).published
    (Either constructive or actual notice to state court is sufficient to terminate that court’s jurisdiction.)
Show 2 more citing cases
  • Allstate Ins. v. Preston, 842 F. Supp. 1441 (S.D. Fla. 1992).published
    (holding that state court's constructive notice of petition of removal is sufficient to deprive it of jurisdiction, making further proceedings void, despite defendant’s failure-to file copy of removal petition in state c…)
  • John F. Finley, of the Est. of Mildred B. Whitlock v. United States, 612 F.2d 166 (5th Cir. 1980).published
    See, e. g., Medrano v. Texas, 580 F.2d 803, 804 (5th Cir. 1978) (per curiam).
Other citing cases5 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Santiago D. MEDRANO, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF TEXAS, Defendant-Appellee
78-1134.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Sep 21, 1978.
Published opinion
580 F.2d 803
1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 8863
Santiago D. Medrano, pro se., Michael R. Gibson, El Paso, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant., Steve W. Simmons, Dist. Atty. of El Paso County, El Paso, Tex., for defendant-appellee.
Thornberry, Gee, Fay.
Cited by 28 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Santiago D. Medrano was arrested in Texas on April 2, 1977. He was indicted shortly thereafter under a Texas theft statute. On September 9, he filed a petition for removal in district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1), alleging a violation of his right to a speedy trial. Although Medrano told his court-appointed attorney that he had filed the petition in district court, a copy was never filed in state court as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(e). On September 21-23, Medrano was tried and convicted of the theft charge. The state judge had neither constructive nor actual notice that a petition for removal had been filed.

On September 26, the federal district court issued an order to show cause why the case should not proceed in federal court. The state was ordered to take no further action until a determination of the merits of the petition could be made. The state immediately stopped all proceedings.

On October 7, appellant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(f). An evidentiary hearing was held on October 28. The petition for removal and the application for writ of habeas corpus were held to be without merit and the case was remanded to state court for sentencing and further proceedings. Since there was no notice to the state court, the trial was held not to be void. We affirm.

The court correctly held that the petition for removal was without merit because it was not brought on proper grounds. 28 U.S.C. § 1443 relief is available only for deprivation of a right guaranteed under federal law providing for specific civil rights stated in terms of racial equality. Further, a litigant must show that he has been “denied or that he cannot enforce” the specific right in state court. Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 95 S.Ct. 1591, 44 L.Ed.2d 121 (1975). The right to a speedy trial obviously does not meet this two-pronged test.

Petitioner argues that his trial was void, and therefore the remand should be for a new trial. Regardless of the merits of the petition, 28 U.S.C. § 1446(e) clearly requires that the state stop all proceedings, once notice is given, until a determination on the merits of the petition for removal is made in federal court. See Adair Pipeline Co. Inc. v. Pipeliners Local Union No. 798, 203 F.Supp. 434 (S.D.Tex.1962) aff’d, 5 Cir. 1963, 325 F.2d 206. Although this issue has not arisen in this Circuit in a criminal case, even constructive notice under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(e) would have been sufficient to deprive the state court of jurisdiction, thus making any further proceedings void. See U. S. ex rel. Echevarria v. Silberglitt, 2nd Cir. 1971, 441 F.2d 225; Adair Pipeline Co. Inc., supra. In this case, however, there was no notice to the state court judge until the state received the order to show cause. Therefore, until that time, the state court retained jurisdiction and appellant’s trial was not void.

AFFIRMED.