UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DORIAN CARTER,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

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. No. 20

- 55952

D.C. No. 2:19

- cv

- 03217

- MWF

- E

Central District of California,

Los Angeles

ORDER

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

The panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing.

The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no

judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. See Fed. R.

App. P. 35.

Evans’s petition for panel rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc

(Docket Entry No. 33 ) are denied.

The previous disposition, filed on December 21, 2021, is withdrawn. A new 

# FILED

APR 1 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 55952

disposition will be filed concurrently with this order.

No further filings will be entertained in this closed case

.NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DORIAN CARTER,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

NATHALEE EVANS, as Claimant to Status

of Trustee of the Declaration Establishing

the Eugenia M. Rin g gold Living Trust Dated

February 28, 1997 and to status as Executor

of the State of Eugenia M. Ringgold,

Defendant

- Appellant,

and

TRACY SHEEN,

Defendant. No. 20

- 55952

D.C. No. 2:19

- cv

- 03217

- MWF

- E

MEMORANDUM *

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). 

# FILED

APR 1 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 55952

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 properly remanded Evans’s action to state court for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction because Evan s failed to establish either federal question

or diversity jurisdiction, Evans failed to show that the state court could not enforce

her rights, and Evans has not identified a California statute or constitutional

provision that purports to command the stat e court to ignore her federal civil rights.

See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1443; Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp. , 546 U.S. 500, 513

(2006) (requirements of federal question and diversity jurisdiction); Patel , 446

F.3d at 998

- 99 (two

- part test for removal under 28 U.S. C. § 1443(1) ) ; see also BP

P.L.C. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore , 141 S. Ct. 1532, 1538 (2021) (when

28 U.S.C. § 1443 is one ground for removal, § 1447(d) permits appellate review of

a district court’s entire remand order).

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).3 20

- 55952

Evans’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 14) is denied.

AFFIRMED

.