Cdcr

MEMORANDUM

Robert P. Smith, III, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for sanctions and costs based on the allegedly defective removal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion. Gibson v. Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d 927, 949-50 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Smith’s motion for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because it properly concluded that the California Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections (“CDCR”) did not remove the ease or oppose remand for an improper purpose, and the CDCR’s filings were not clearly frivolous. See Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 675-77 (9th Cir.2005) (identifying bases for awarding Rule 11 sanctions and explaining that a frivolous filing is both baseless and made without a reasonable and competent inquiry).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Smith’s motion for costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c) because the CDCR had “an objectively reasonable basis for removal.” Gardner v. UICI, 508 F.3d 559, 560-61 (9th…