People of the Territory of Guam v. Richard J. Landgraf, 594 F.2d 201 (9th Cir. 1979). · Go Syfert
Search
People of the Territory of Guam v. Richard J. Landgraf, 594 F.2d 201 (9th Cir. 1979). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: McClure, No. 9:25-cv-00210 (D. Mont. Jan. 23, 2026)
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#13 28 U.S.C. § 1451 cited 1× in this case · 53 total citations of statute
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 202 Limiting removal under section 1443 to fifty states10 citing casesconfirming that removal under section 1443(1) is expressly limited to state courts2 citing courts put it this way · 9 listed here
  • McClure, No. 9:25-cv-00210 (D. Mont. Jan. 23, 2026).
    (confirming that removal under section 1443(1) is expressly limited to state courts)
  • Aguon-Schulte v. Attorney Gen. of Guam, 469 F.3d 1236 (9th Cir. 2006).published 2 cites
    (When Congress has intended to extend § 1443(1) to an entity other than one of the fifty states, it has done so expressly.)
  • DeCoteau v. Sentry Ins., 915 F. Supp. 155 (D.N.D. 1996).published
    Terr. of Guam v. Landgraf, 594 F.2d 201, 202 (9th Cir.1979).
  • Weso v. Menominee Indian Sch. Dist., 915 F. Supp. 73 (E.D. Wis. 1995).published
    People of the Territory of Guam v. Landgraf, 594 F.2d 201, 202 (9th Cir.1979). 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (1) is the removal statute applicable to civil rights actions.
  • White Tail v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 915 F. Supp. 153 (D.N.D. 1995).published
    Becenti v. Vigil, 902 F.2d 777 (10th Cir.1990), citing Guam v. Landgraf, 594 F.2d 201, 202 (9th Cir.1979).
  • Gourneau v. Love, 915 F. Supp. 150 (D.N.D. 1994).published
    Terr. of Guam v. Landgraf, 594 F.2d 201, 202 (9th Cir.1979).
  • United States v. Ricardo Bordallo, 857 F.2d 519 (9th Cir. 1988).published
    (dealing with removal of an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (1))
  • Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Vanir Constr. Mgmt., Inc., No. 4:23-cv-00160 (D. Idaho July 24, 2023).
    See People of Territory of Guam v. Landgraf, 594 F.2d 201, 202 (9th Cir. 1979).
  • Mary Becenti v. Sheryl Vigil, 902 F.2d 777 (10th Cir. 1990).published
    See, e.g., Guam v. Landgraf, 594 F.2d 201, 202 (9th Cir.1979) (“We cannot read congressional references to an action in ‘State’ court as including an action in the courts of the Territory of Guam.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The PEOPLE OF the TERRITORY OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Richard J. LANDGRAF, Defendant-Appellant
75-3122.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Mar 28, 1979.
Published opinion
594 F.2d 201
1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 15858
Howard Trapp (argued), Agana, Guam, for defendant-appellant., Frank G. Lujan, Atty. Gen. (argued), Agana, Guam, for plaintiff-appellee.
Chambers, Ely, Choy.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 83%
Citer courts: New Mexico Court of Appeals (1)

ORDER

Before CHAMBERS, ELY and CHOY, Circuit Judges.

Landgraf appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition to remove to the Guam district court a criminal prosecu[*202] tion pending against him in the Superior Court of Guam. Landgraf claims that the prosecution is removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). Upon our initial hearing of this cause we affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the petition for removal. At the same time we extended the period during which appellant could file a petition for rehearing, believing that the Supreme Court’s decision in Chase Manhattan Bank v. South Acres Development Co., 434 U.S. 236, 98 S.Ct. 544, 54 L.Ed.2d 501 (1978), then under consideration, might affect resolution of the instant appeal. We find now, however, that Chase Manhattan Bank does not assist in determining the instant cause.

Section 1443(1) provides:

Any of the following civil actions or criminal prosecutions, commenced in a State court may be removed . . . :
(1) Against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens . . .

(Emphasis added.) We cannot read congressional references to an action in “State” court as including an action in the courts of the Territory of Guam. When Congress has intended to extend § 1443(1) to an entity other than one of the fifty states, it has done so expressly. See 28 U.S.C. § 1451 (District of Columbia); 48 U.S.C. § 864 (Puerto Rico). Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed the petition for removal and we deny the petition for rehearing.

PETITION DENIED.