Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05673/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05673-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALVIN RONNEL ROSS,

Plaintiff,

v.

GUERRERO,

Defendant.

 /

CV F 04 5673 OWW SMS P 

ORDER DISREGARDING MOTION

REQUESTING COURT TO REISSUE ORDER

OF REMAND (Docs. 42.) 

Alvin Ronnel Ross (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On September 2, 2005, this Court remanded the case back to the State Court after having

determined that the Complaint did not allege federal claims for relief. (Doc. 37.) The Case was

terminated at that time. 

On June 29, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion requesting the Court reissue the Order of

remand and issue an acknowledgment to state court. Plaintiff states that he has contacted the

state court but they have no record of his case. 

It is well-settled in the Ninth Circuit that once a case has been remanded, the district court

is divested of jurisdiction and may take no further action in the case. See Seedman v. United

States Dist. Court, m, 414 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (citations omitted). Under the removal

statute, and subject to exceptions that are not relevant here, an order remanding an action “is not

Case 1:04-cv-05673-OWW -SMS Document 44 Filed 02/26/07 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

2

review able on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). The “or otherwise” language applies

equally to the court that issued that remand order as to any appellate court. Thus, an order of

remand “returns the case to the state courts and the federal court has no power to retrieve it.” 

Seedman, 837 F.2d at 414 (citation omitted). Moreover, once a case has been remanded, a

second or successive removal on the same “grounds” as the first is generally forbidden. See St.

Paul & C. Ry. Co. v. McLean, 2 S. Ct. 498, 500 (1883) (“we are of the opinion that a party is not

entitled . . . to file a second petition for the removal [of an action] upon the same grounds [as the

first removal], where, upon the first removal by the same party, the federal court declined to

proceed and remanded the suit . . . .”). 

According to the Court docket, the state court was served with a copy of the Court’s

Order of Remand when the Order issued. Because the Court is divested of jurisdiction after

remand, the Court can take no further action in this case. As noted above, this case was

terminated upon the remand. Thus, any questions relating to this matter should be directed to the

state court. The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion filed on June 29, 2006, subsequent to the remand of this action to the

state court is DISREGARDED. As this case is no longer active in this Court, all

further motions filed will be STRICKEN from the record. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05673-OWW -SMS Document 44 Filed 02/26/07 Page 2 of 2