Parham

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RENELL THORPE, No. 2:20-cv-1923 KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER PARHAM, et al., Defendant. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. This action was removed from state court. Removal jurisdiction statutes are strictly construed against removal. See Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The party invoking removal bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2009). Where it appears the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Plaintiff opposes removal, claiming this matter involves a “small claims property issue.” (ECF No. 4 at 1.) Plaintiff avers that he did not intend to…