Case Name: CHASE BANK OF TEXAS, N.A., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leo F. BURGER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-05-19
Citations: 97 F. App'x 776
Docket Number: No. 03-56502
Parties: CHASE BANK OF TEXAS, N.A., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leo F. BURGER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 97
Pages: 776–777

Head Matter:
CHASE BANK OF TEXAS, N.A., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leo F. BURGER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-56502.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 10, 2004.
Decided May 19, 2004.
John L. Bailey, Esq., Hall & Bailey, Riverside, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Leo F. Burger, Colton, CA, pro se.
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, appellee's request for oral argument is denied. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Leo Burger appeals pro se the district court's order striking his notice of removal of a state court action from San Diego Superior Court. We dismiss.
After unsuccessfully attempting to remove the instant action numerous times, Burger filed a notice of removal under the case number of another pending matter before the United States District Court. The district court's order striking Burger's notice of removal is unreviewable, and we therefore lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2004) (citing Kunzi v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 833 F.2d 1291, 1294 n. 7 (9th Cir.1987)).
Burger's remaining contentions lack merit.
We deny all outstanding motions as moot.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.