Lorenzo Arteaga v. State of California

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: February 7, 2019
• Docket: 17-50952
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 17-50952 Document: 00514827156 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/07/2019

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED No. 17-50952 February 7, 2019 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk LORENZO ARTEAGA,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Superior Court of Santa Cruz, et al,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:17-CV-923

Before BARKSDALE, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Lorenzo Arteaga filed a pro se notice of removal in which he sought to remove a criminal case pending in California state court to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division (the district court). Arteaga is incarcerated in California, and his claims pertain to offenses or conduct occurring in California. The district court dismissed the

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. Case: 17-50952 Document: 00514827156 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/07/2019

No. 17-50952

case for lack of jurisdiction. That ruling is the only one before our court on Arteaga’s pro se appeal. “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Absent jurisdiction conferred by statute, district courts lack power to consider claims.” Veldhoen v. U.S. Coast Guard, 35 F.3d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1994). With the benefit of liberal construction, Arteaga appears to contend he should be able to remove his case to the district court because a request was made in 1984, by the then Governor of California, to have Arteaga extradited from Texas to California. Arteaga, however, has not identified, and our court cannot discern, any valid basis for jurisdiction in district court. Therefore, because the motion Arteaga filed in the district court cannot be construed in such a way that relief is possible, it was “a meaningless, unauthorized motion”, see United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994), which the district court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction to consider. AFFIRMED.