Kim v. Card

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted May 29, 2024 ^[**]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 2:22-cv-02247-TLN-AC

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

MEMORANDUM ^[*]

Darnell Card appeals pro se from the district court's order remanding this unlawful detainer action to California state court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). BPP.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, 1029 (9th Cir. 2011) ("Federal jurisdiction cannot hinge upon defenses or counterclaims, whether actual or anticipated.").

All pending requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

^[*] 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).