IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

LESHIA A. HART EDWARDS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BRUCE ALAN BATCHELOR, 

Defendant. 

MARCO HERNANDEZ, District Judge: 

3:14-CV-1596-PK 

OPINION AND 

ORDER 

Plaintiff pro se Leshia A. Hart Edwards filed this action in Jonna pauperis against 

defendant Bruce Alan Batchelor on October 9, 2014. For the reasons set fmih below, Edwards' 

action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Civil Procedure Rule 12(h)(3). 

Analysis of the allegations in support of Edwards' complaint suggests that Edwards 

intends either to bring one or more battery claims against Batchelor or to bring claims against 

Page I - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01596-PK Document 15 Filed 12/30/14 Page 1 of 3
unspecified law enforcement personnel not named as defendants herein, in connection with those 

absent parties' alleged lax enforcement of one or more restraining orders ban'ing Batchelor from, 

inter alia, entering Edwards' residence, entering Edwards' vicinity, contacting Edwards, or 

committing acts of violence against her. Edwards' claim and/or claims and supporting 

allegations do not give rise to any essential federal question, and it appears to be clear that this 

comt lacks diversity jurisdiction over Edwards' action. 

On October 16, 2014, Judge Papak ordered Edwards to show cause within thirty days 

why her action should not be dismissed for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction or, in the 

alternative, to amend her pleading to cure its jurisdictional infirn1ities. Edwards made no effo1t 

either to make that showing or to amend her pleading within the time allowed for so doing, but 

on the basis of her ex parte representations to the court that she needed additional time to 

respond, on December 8, 2014, Judge Papak amended his order to allow Edwards until 

December 19, 2014, either to make the required showing or to amend her pleading. On 

December 19, 2014, Edwards moved for appointment of pro bona counsel and for appointment 

of a mediator. Edwards has neither responded to the order to show cause nor amended her 

pleading to cure the jurisdictional infirmities identified by Judge Papak. 

Federal Civil Procedure Rule 12(h)(3) provides that "[i]fthe court determines at any time 

· that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(h)(3); see also Cal. Diversified Promotions, Inc. v. l'vfusick, 505 F.2d 278, 280 (9th Cir. 1974) 

("It has long been held that a judge can dismiss sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction"). In the 

absence of any grounds for the exercise of federal subject-matter jurisdiction over Edwards' 

claim or claims, this action is dismissed without prejudice in its entirety for lack of subjectPage 2 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01596-PK Document 15 Filed 12/30/14 Page 2 of 3
matter jurisdiction. As noted in Judge Papak's Order (#7) to Show Cause, such dismissal does 

not impair her right to proceed with her claim or claims in the comts of the State of Oregon. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set fo11h above, Edwards' action is dismissed without prejudice in its 

entirety. All pending motions are denied as moot. A final judgment shall be prepared. 

Dated this 30th day of December, 2014. 

Page 3 - OPINION AND ORDER 

HOl10fllble ~~ MarCOHernalldh 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:14-cv-01596-PK Document 15 Filed 12/30/14 Page 3 of 3