Rudolfo Chavez v. Leah Chavez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 27, 2024
• Docket: 22-16352
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 27 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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