Christopher Krohe v. Steinhardt

Filing 11

ORDER Consolidating Lead Case 1:17-cv-00878-DAD-MJA with Member Cases 1:17-cv-00881-DAD-MJS, 1:17-cv-00885-DAD-MJS and 1:17-cv-00889-DAD-MJS, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/28/17. This Member Case Closed, all filing should be made in Lead Case 1:17-cv-00878-DAD-MJS. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRISTOPHER DAVID KROHE,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Plaintiff,
v.

No. 1:17-cv-00878-DAD-MJS
LEAD CASE
ORDER:

ZANDRA STEINHARDT,

(1) ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS,

Defendant.
(2) CONSOLIDATING CASE NOS.
1:17-cv-00878-DAD-MJS,
1:17-cv-00881-DAD-MJS,
1:17-cv-00885-DAD-MJS, AND
1:17-cv-00889-DAD-MJS;
(3) ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE
NOS.
1:17-cv-00881-DAD-MJS,
1:17-cv-00885-DAD-MJS, AND
1:17-cv-00889-DAD-MJS; AND

22

(4) DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

23

(Doc. No. 16)

24
25
26
27
28
1

1
2

CHRISTOPHER D. KROHE,
Plaintiff,

3
4
5

v.
ZANDRA K. STEINHARDT,
Defendant.

6
7

CHRISTOPHER D. KROHE,

8
9
10

No. 1:17-cv-00881-DAD-EPG

No. 1:17-cv-00885-LJO-SKO

Plaintiff,
v.
ZANDRA K. STEINHARDT,

11

Defendant.

12
13

CHRISTOPHER D. KROHE,

14
15
16
17

No. 1:17-cv-00889-DAD-SKO

Plaintiff,
v.
ZANDRA STEINHARDT,
Defendant.

18
19

Plaintiff Christopher David Krohe proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this

20

complaint against Zandra Steinhardt. (Doc. No. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States

21

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States

22

District Court for the Eastern District of California.

23

On August 1, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and

24

recommended that: (1) Case Nos. 1:17-cv-00881-DAD-MJS, 1:17-cv-00885-DAD-MJS, and

25

1:17-cv-00889-DAD-MJS, be consolidated with the instant case and thereafter administratively

26

closed; and (2) plaintiff’s complaint, which is substantially identical to those in each of the other

27

consolidated cases, be dismissed without leave to amend due to lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. No.

28

16.) On August 21, 2017, plaintiff filed objections. (Doc. No. 17.) In those objections, plaintiff
2

1
2

agrees that the cases should be consolidated but objects to the dismissal of his complaint.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a

3

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s

4

objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and

5

by proper analysis. Plaintiff’s objections do not address the jurisdictional defects described in the

6

findings and recommendations, nor do they otherwise establish a basis for federal subject matter

7

jurisdiction.

8

Accordingly,

9

1. The August 1, 2017 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 16) are adopted in full;

10

2. The following cases shall be consolidated:

11

1:17-cv-00878-DAD-MJS,

12

1:17-cv-00881-DAD-MJS,

13

1:17-cv-00885-DAD-MJS, and

14

1:17-cv-00889-DAD-MJS;

15

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to file a copy of this order in each of the above-

16
17

referenced consolidated cases;
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to administratively close Case Nos. 1:17-cv-00881-

18

DAD-MJS, 1:17-cv-00885-DAD-MJS, and 1:17-cv-00889-DAD-MJS;

19

5. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without leave to amend for lack of jurisdiction; and

20

6. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate any pending motions and close this case.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 28, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
3