Dorian Carter v. Nathalee Evans, as

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DORIAN CARTER,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
NATHALEE EVANS, as Claimant to Status
of Trustee of the Declaration Establishing the
Eugenia M. Ringgold Living Trust Dated
February 28, 1997 and to status as Executor
of the State of Eugenia M. Ringgold,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
TRACY SHEEN,
Defendant.
No. 20-55952
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-03217-MWF-E
Central District of California,
Los Angeles
ORDER
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing.
The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no
judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. See Fed. R.
App. P. 35.
Evans’s petition for panel rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc
(Docket Entry No. 33) are denied.
The previous disposition, filed on December 21, 2021, is withdrawn. A new
FILED
APR 1 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 5 --

2 20-55952
disposition will be filed concurrently with this order.
No further filings will be entertained in this closed case.

-- 2 of 5 --

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DORIAN CARTER,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
NATHALEE EVANS, as Claimant to Status
of Trustee of the Declaration Establishing
the Eugenia M. Ringgold Living Trust Dated
February 28, 1997 and to status as Executor
of the State of Eugenia M. Ringgold,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
TRACY SHEEN,
Defendant.
No. 20-55952
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-03217-MWF-E
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2021**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
* 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).
FILED
APR 1 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 3 of 5 --

2 20-55952
Nathalee Evans appeals from the district court’s order remanding her 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 (9th Cir.
2006). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul,
547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court properly remanded Evans’s action to state court for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction because Evans failed to establish either federal question
or diversity jurisdiction, Evans failed to show that the state court could not enforce
her rights, and Evans has not identified a California statute or constitutional
provision that purports to command the state court to ignore her federal civil rights.
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1443; Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513
(2006) (requirements of federal question and diversity jurisdiction); Patel, 446
F.3d at 998-99 (two-part test for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1)); see also BP
P.L.C. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 141 S. Ct. 1532, 1538 (2021) (when
28 U.S.C. § 1443 is one ground for removal, § 1447(d) permits appellate review of
a district court’s entire remand order).
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).

-- 4 of 5 --

3 20-55952
Evans’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 14) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 5 of 5 --