Unpublished Disposition, 881 F.2d 1084 (9th Cir. 1989)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Rodney Stich appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his petition to remove his California state domestic relations-based action to federal court. Stich contends that the district court erred in determining that removal was not proper in this case and in remanding to state court.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed. Because Stich did not supply the district court with a copy of "all process, pleadings and orders served upon him," as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446, the district court properly remanded his action to state court. See Hunter v. Van Lines, 746 F.2d 635, 639 (9th Cir. 1984); Cook v. Robinson, 612 F. Supp. 187, 190 (D.C.Va.1985). Moreover, a defendant to a state court civil action may not remove a case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (1973) when that removal is based solely on a federal defense reply. Hunter, 746 F.2d at 639. Removal is proper only if a right created by the United States Constitution, laws or statutes is an essential element of the plaintiff's cause of action, appearing on the face of plaintiff's complaint. Ethridge v. Harbor House Restaurant, 861 F.2d 1389, 1392-93 (9th Cir. 1988). Because Stich's state action primarily involves state domestic relations matters, it is not removable to federal court. See Csibi v. Fustos, 670 F.2d 134, 136-38 (9th Cir. 1982). Finally, Stich alleged none of the elements of removal required by 28 U.S.C. § 1443. See California v. Sandoval, 434 F.2d 635, 636 (9th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 909 (1971).

AFFIRMED.