UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APR 1 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

DORIAN CARTER, No. 20-55952

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-03217-MWF-E Central District of California, v. Los Angeles

NATHALEE EVANS, as Claimant to Status ORDER 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.

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The previous disposition, filed on December 21, 2021, is withdrawn.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 disposition will be filed concurrently with this order.

No further filings will be entertained in this closed case.

2 20-55952

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 1 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DORIAN CARTER, No. 20-55952

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-03217-MWF-E

v.

MEMORANDUM*

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.

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). 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).

2 20-55952 Evans’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 14) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 20-55952