Piffer

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL MITCHELL, No. 2:18-cv-2949-WBS-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 PIFFER, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, brought this action in the Amador 18 County Superior Court. ECF No. 1. Defendant removed the case to this court on November 9, 19 2018 (id.) and, on January 16, 2020, it was dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a 20 cognizable claim. ECF No. 18. No appeal was taken. 21 Now, plaintiff has filed a motion to remand this closed case to the superior court. ECF 22 No. 20. Therein, he argues that, since the dismissal in this court, he has unsuccessfully attempted 23 to reopen the state court case that was removed. Id. at 2-4. This motion must be denied for two 24 reasons. 25 First, the motion is untimely. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), “[a] motion to remand the case 26 on the basis of any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made…