Dorian Carter v. Nathalee Evans ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 21 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DORIAN CARTER, No. 20-55952
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-03217-MWF-E
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NATHALEE EVANS, as Claimant to Status
of Trustee of the Declaration Establishing
the Eugenia M. Ringgold Living Trust Dated
February 28, 1997 and to status as Executor
of the State of Eugenia M. Ringgold,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
TRACY SHEEN,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2021**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Nathalee Evans appeals from the district court’s order remanding her case to
California Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s decision
to remand a removed case. Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 998 (9th Cir.
2006). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul,
547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court’s remand of Evans’s action to state court was proper
because Evans failed to establish that the state court could not enforce her rights
and because Evans has not identified a California statute or constitutional provision
that purports to command the state court to ignore her federal civil rights. See
Patel, 446 F.3d at 998-99 (two-part test for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1)).
We lack jurisdiction to review the portions of the district court’s order
remanding Evans’s action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
because remand for lack of diversity or federal question jurisdiction is not
reviewable on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (an order remanding a case to the
state court from which it was removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 is not reviewable
on appeal).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
2 20-55952
Evans’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 14) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 20-55952