Piffer

(PC) Mitchell v. Piffer

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 16, 20202:18-cv-02949California620 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MICHAEL MITCHELL, No. 2:18-cv-2949-WBS-EFB P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PIFFER, Defendant. 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, brought this action in the Amador County Superior Court. ECF No. 1. Defendant removed the case to this court on November 9, 2018 (id.) and, on January 16, 2020, it was dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a cognizable claim. ECF No. 18. No appeal was taken. Now, plaintiff has filed a motion to remand this closed case to the superior court. ECF No. 20. Therein, he argues that, since the dismissal in this court, he has unsuccessfully attempted to reopen the state court case that was removed. Id. at 2-4. This motion must be denied for two reasons. First, the motion is untimely. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), “[a] motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.