Court Opinion

ID: 9945481
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 21:01:30.279967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:31.038583
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 27 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RUDOLFO CHAVEZ,                                 No. 22-16352

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:22-cv-01431-TLN-KJN

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
LEAH CHAVEZ,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Eastern District of California
                     Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 21, 2024**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      Leah Chavez appeals pro se from the district court’s order remanding this

action to state court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1447(d).

We review de novo. Lively v. Wild Oats Markets, Inc., 456 F.3d 933, 938 (9th Cir.

2006). We affirm.

      *
             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).
      The district court properly sua sponte remanded this action to state court for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Leah Chavez failed to establish federal

question jurisdiction or show a basis for civil rights jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331 (providing original jurisdiction for civil actions “arising under” federal

law); 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (providing removal jurisdiction for violations of equal civil

rights); 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (requiring district courts to remand “at any time” for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 998-99

(9th Cir. 2006) (setting forth two-part test for removal under § 1443(1)), abrogated

on other grounds by BP P.L.C. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 593 U.S.

230 (2021).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                    22-16352