Charles Kim v. Darnell Card

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 3, 2024
• Docket: 22-17020
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 3 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHARLES KIM, No. 22-17020

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:22-cv-02247-TLN-AC

v. MEMORANDUM* DARNELL CARD,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

KRYSTAL PARKER,

Defendant.

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

Submitted May 29, 2024**

Before: FRIEDLAND, BENNETT, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Darnell Card appeals pro se from the district court’s order remanding this

* 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). unlawful detainer action to California state court. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1447(d). BP P.L.C. v. Mayor & Council of Balt., 593 U.S. 230, 141 S.

Ct. 1532, 1538 (2021) (where 28 U.S.C § 1443 is asserted as a ground for removal,

appellate courts may review the entirety of the district court’s removal order). We

review de novo a district court’s decision to remand a removed case and its

determination that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Corona-Contreras v. Gruel,

857 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2017). We may affirm on any basis supported by

the record. Hell’s Angels Motorcycle Corp. v. McKinley, 360 F.3d 930, 933 (9th

Cir. 2004). We affirm.

Remand of this action was proper because Card failed to establish that a

state statute or constitutional provision purported to command the California state

courts to ignore Card’s federal rights. See 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) (providing removal

jurisdiction for actions alleging violations of equal civil rights where one cannot

enforce such rights in state court); 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., 141 S. Ct. at 1538.

To the extent Card sought to remove under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, the district

court properly remanded because the complaint did not present a federal question.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (providing original jurisdiction for civil actions “arising

under” federal law); K2 Am. Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLC, 653 F.3d 1024,

2 22-17020 1029 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Federal jurisdiction cannot hinge upon defenses or

counterclaims, whether actual or anticipated.”).

All pending requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 22-17020