the People of the State of California v. PAULINE HUNTER, AKA Pauline Clay

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
PAULINE HUNTER, AKA Pauline Clay,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-55297
D.C. No. 2:18-cr-00082-JAK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted September 10, 2019
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW, BENNETT, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Pauline Clay Hunter appeals from the district court’s order remanding for
lack of jurisdiction her criminal case to the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), and review a decision to remand
de novo, Fidelitad, Inc. v. Insitu, Inc., 904 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2018). We
affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
OCT 3 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Hunter was charged in state court with six counts of perjury for applying for
false driver’s licenses. She contends her role as guardian ad litem for her minor
grandchildren in a separate federal civil suit qualifies her to invoke the federal
officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442. We need not consider whether a
guardian ad litem could ever be deemed an “officer of the court” within the
meaning of the statute. Even if Hunter was an officer or was acting under an
officer, removal is warranted only if there is “a nexus” between the criminal
charges against Hunter and the actions she took relating to her role as guardian ad
litem. Jefferson Cty., Ala. v. Acker, 527 U.S. 423, 431 (1999). To demonstrate a
nexus, Hunter argues first that the criminal complaint against her encompasses the
time period when she was actively serving as guardian ad litem. Yet Hunter
obtained five of her six false licenses before March 31, 2014, the date she was
appointed guardian ad litem. Second, Hunter argues that, in her capacity as
guardian ad litem, she was required to maintain state-issued identification.
However, Hunter’s role as guardian ad litem required her to maintain valid, not
invalid, identification. Because there is no nexus between Hunter’s duties or
actions as guardian ad litem and the criminal charges against her, her case is not
properly removable under § 1442. The district court correctly remanded the case
to the state court because it lacked jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --