-
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 16 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STATE OF CALIFORNIA, No. 20-15345 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-00560-KJM-DB v. MEMORANDUM* MICHAEL INGRAM EL, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 8, 2020** Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Michael Ingram El appeals pro se from the district court’s order remanding his 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 * 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). (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm. The district court properly remanded Ingram El’s action to state court because Ingram El failed to establish that the state court could not enforce his rights and because Ingram El has not identified a California statute or constitutional provision that purports to command the state court to ignore his federal civil rights. See
id. at 998-99(two-part test for removal under
28 U.S.C. § 1443(1)). We reject as unsupported by the record Ingram El’s contentions that the district court denied him due process. 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). AFFIRMED. 2 20-15345
Document Info
Docket Number: 20-15345
Filed Date: 9/16/2020
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 9/16/2020