Court Opinion

ID: 9407911
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-10 19:00:42.590164+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:40.868373
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 10 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ABBRA L. GREEN, a natural Person                No.    22-16641
residing at 16-566 Keaau Pahoa Rd., # 188-
736, Hawaii County, Hawaii; AUSTIN D.           D.C. No. 1:22-cv-00444-DKW-
MARTIN, Advocate, Husband of Petitioner,        KJM
Affected Party, Witness, a Natural Person
residing at 16-566 Keaau Pahoa Rd., # 188-
736, Hawaii County, Hawaii,                     MEMORANDUM*

                Plaintiffs-Appellants,

 v.

M. KANANI LAUBACH, The Honorable,
Individually and in her official capacity as
Judge of the District Court of Hawaii
County, presiding at Hale Kaulike, 777
Kilauea Avenue, Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4212,
et all.,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Hawaii
                 Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted June 26, 2023**

      *
             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).
Before:       CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

      The motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (Docket Entry Nos. 4, 8)

is granted.

      Abbra L. Green and Austin D. Martin appeal pro se from the district court's

order remanding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction their case to the Third

Circuit Court for the State of Hawai‘i. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. BP PLC v. Mayor & Council of Baltimore, 141 S. Ct. 1532 (2021) (where

28 U.S.C §§ 1442 or 1443 are asserted as grounds for removal, appellate courts

may review the entirety of the district court’s removal order). We review de novo

questions of subject matter jurisdiction. City of Oakland v. BP PLC, 969 F.3d 895,

903 (9th Cir. 2020). We affirm.

      The district court properly remanded appellants’ action because appellants

attempted to remove a state court criminal proceeding and failed to meet the

requirements for removal under any of the relevant statutes. See 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1441, 1442, 1442a, 1443.

      As requested by appellants (Docket Entry No. 7), the court considered the

opening brief submitted electronically on November 18, 2022 (Docket Entry No.

3). The Clerk will file the opening brief submitted at Docket Entry No. 3.

      All other pending motions are denied as moot.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                    22-16641