1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 JOUSE FLORES, ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:20-cv-01478-GMN-DJA 5 vs. ) 6 ) ORDER STATE OF NEVADA, ) 7 ) Defendant. ) 8 ) 9 10 Pending before the Court is the Petition for Removal, (ECF No. 1), filed by pro se 11 Petitioner Jouse Flores (“Flores”). For the reasons discussed below, Flores’s case is remanded. 12 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. In re Hunter,

, 1005 (9th 13 Cir. 1995). A federal court therefore has a sua sponte obligation to ensure that it has subject- 14 matter jurisdiction. Kwai Fun Wong v. Beebe,

(9th Cir. 2013) (citations 15 omitted). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal 16 in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992) (citing Libhart v. 17 Santa Monica Dairy Co.,

(9th Cir. 1979)). In cases removed from state 18 court, a federal court that finds a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction does not dismiss, but must 19 remand to state court.

(c). 20 Here, Flores purports to remove two criminal cases from Pahrump Justice Court—Case 21 Nos. “18CR05284, &/or CR9227, & 20NY-2077.” (See Pet. for Removal at 9–11, ECF No. 1). 22 The Petition for Removal claims that this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to various federal 23 statutes. (Id. at 2–4). However, the Petition’s reliance on these statutes is misplaced because 24 they only apply to civil matters, not criminal. For example, Flores cites

, 25 which provides that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions 1 arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

2 (emphasis added). Plaintiff further cites

, which sets forth the procedure for 3 removal of civil actions. Indeed,

, which allows for removal of certain state 4 actions, and which Flores cites, is titled “Removal of Civil Actions.” In sum, none of the civil 5 statutes under which Flores invokes jurisdiction actually confer jurisdiction over a criminal 6 case. Because the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Flores’s state criminal cases, this 7 matter must be remanded. 8 Accordingly, 9 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that that Clerk of the Court shall remand this matter to 10 Pahrump Justice Court, Nevada for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of the Court 11 is directed to mail a copy of this Order to the clerk of that court. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall close this case 13 accordingly. 14 DATED this __1_1__ day of August, 2020. 15 16 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 17 United States District Court 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25