CALIFORNIA v. INGRAM EL (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Michael Ingram El appeals pro se from the district court's order remanding his 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 affirm.

The district court properly remanded Ingram El's action to state court because Ingram El failed to establish that the state court could not enforce his rights and because Ingram El has not identified a California statute or constitutional provision that purports to command the state court to ignore his federal civil rights. See id. at 998-99 (two-part test for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1)).

We reject as unsupported by the record Ingram El's contentions that the district court denied him due process.

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).

AFFIRMED.