IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

GERALD ZACHARY HAMMOND, Plaintiff, No. 3:20-cv-01086-MO v. OPINION AND ORDER DERRICK WARREN and DAN TRIFONE, Defendants.

MOSMAN, J., Plaintiff Gerald Zachary Hammond, proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit against Defendants Derrick Warren and Dan Trifone for defamation of character and slander. On July 23, 2020, I granted his application to proceed in forma pauperis. Order [ECF 7]. On September 9, 2020, I ordered Mr. Hammond to comply with the service instructions provided to him by October 9, 2020, or this action would be dismissed without prejudice. Order [ECF 10]. Mr. Hammond has not complied. Instead, he filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel [ECF 11] and a second application to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF 12]. DISCUSSION I could dismiss this action without prejudice for Mr. Hammond’s failure to comply with my prior Order [ECF 10]. However, a bigger problem exists: this court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court 1 — OPINION AND ORDER

must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Additionally, the court shall dismiss a

action “at any time if the court determines that ... the action . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.”

(e)(2)(B)Gi); see also Calhoun v. Stahl,

(9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (explaining that “the provisions of

(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners”). Although a pro se litigant should ordinarily be granted an opportunity to amend, the court may dismiss the action if “it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect.” Garity vy. APWU Nat'l Labor Org.,

(9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr.,

(9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam)). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Jurisdiction may be based on either the presence of a federal question or diversity of citizenship.

, 1332. Under

, a district court has “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Under

, a district court has “original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000” and the matter “is between .. . citizens of different States.” Mr. Hammond has sued for defamation of character and slander. As a basis for federal- court jurisdiction, Mr. Hammond claims both federal question and diversity of citizenship. Compl. [ECF 1] at 3. However, Mr. Hammond’s civil action does not arise under any federal statute, federal treaty, or provision of the United States Constitution. /d. at 3. Moreover, all parties to this suit are citizens of Oregon. Jd. at 1-4. Thus, this court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, and I must dismiss the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). HI

2 — OPINION AND ORDER

CONCLUSION Because this court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, I DISMISS this case with prejudice. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. _ tb DATED this 6 day of November, 2020.

Are MICHAEL W. MOSMAN United States District @

3 OPINION AND ORDER