From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lorretz v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 3, 2018
No. 2:18-cv-00521 TLN CKD (PS) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2018)

Opinion

No. 2:18-cv-00521 TLN CKD (PS)

04-03-2018

DIANA LEE WALLACH LORRETZ, Plaintiff, v. U.S.A., et al., Defendants.


ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c).

On March 14, 2018 the undersigned issued an order to show cause no later than March 28, 2018 why this action should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff was advised that failure to allege a proper basis for jurisdiction would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The deadline has passed, and while plaintiff has filed several motions, she has not shown cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Absent jurisdiction over this action, the court will deny all pending motions.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion for order to show cause (ECF No. 4) is denied;

2. Plaintiff's motion to amend (ECF No. 5) is denied;

3. Plaintiff's motion to file police report (ECF No. 6) is denied;

4. Plaintiff's motion to add citizen complaint (ECF No. 8) is denied; and

5. Plaintiff's motion to vacate sentence (ECF No. 9) is denied.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

In light of this recommendation, IT IS ALSO HEREBY ORDERED that all pleading, discovery, and motion practice in this action are STAYED pending resolution of the findings and recommendations. With the exception of objections to the findings and recommendations and any non-frivolous motions for emergency relief, the court will not entertain or respond to any motions and other filings until the findings and recommendations are resolved.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: April 3, 2018

/s/_________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2/ lorretz0521.nojuris_f&r


Summaries of

Lorretz v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 3, 2018
No. 2:18-cv-00521 TLN CKD (PS) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2018)
Case details for

Lorretz v. United States

Case Details

Full title:DIANA LEE WALLACH LORRETZ, Plaintiff, v. U.S.A., et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Apr 3, 2018

Citations

No. 2:18-cv-00521 TLN CKD (PS) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2018)