Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01465/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01465-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Because oral argument will not be of material 1

assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. 

See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 78-230(h).

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM,

et al.,

NO. CIV. S-06-1465 FCD KJM PS

Plaintiffs, NO. CIV. S-06-1466 FCD KJM PS

NO. CIV. S-06-1467 FCD KJM PS

NO. CIV. S-06-1468 FCD KJM PS

v. NO. CIV. S-06-1470 FCD KJM PS

NO. CIV. S-06-1471 FCD KJM PS

NO. CIV. S-06-1472 FCD KJM PS

NO. CIV. S-06-1473 FCD KJM PS

BARBARA CLARK,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

These matters are before the court on pro se defendant

Barbara Clark’s (“Clark”) motion to “vacate, amend or make moot”

the court’s order of September 5, 2006, summarily remanding the

above entitled actions to the Superior Court of California,

County of Placer. In said order, the court adopted the 1

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations of July 13, 2006,

Case 2:06-cv-01465-FCD-KJM Document 18 Filed 10/13/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

In moving to vacate the court’s September 5, 2006 2

order, Clark also seeks to vacate the court’s subsequent order of

September 6, 2006, striking her cross-claims filed in each matter

as moot on the basis of the court’s remand order. 

2

finding that the case was improvidently removed as no basis for

federal subject matter jurisdiction existed. By the underlying

state court actions, plaintiffs sought a stay away order against

Clark, prohibiting her from making further threats of violence

against plaintiffs’ employees.

Clark’s instant motions, brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

59(e), are HEREBY DENIED. Remand orders based on 28 U.S.C. § 2

1447(c) are unreviewable on “appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. §

1447(d). This statutory language has “universally [been]

construed to preclude not only appellate review but also

reconsideration by the district court.” Seedman v. U.S. District

Court, 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988). Once a district court

certifies a remand order to state court it is “divested of

jurisdiction and can take no further action on the case.” Id. 

As such, the court is without jurisdiction to hear the subject

motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 DATED: October 13, 2006

 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01465-FCD-KJM Document 18 Filed 10/13/06 Page 2 of 2