1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 Case No. 19-cv-05698-KAW

8 A MARIE WILSON, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 9 Plaintiff, APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; REPORT AND 10 v. RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS CASE; ORDER REASSIGNING CASE 11 TOM-LIU FAMILY INVESTMENTS LLC, TO A DISTRICT JUDGE 12 Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 6

13 14 On September 10, 2019, Plaintiff A Marie Wilson filed a “Complaint Request for 15 Injunction” against Defendant Tom-Liu Family Investments LLC. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff 16 alleged violations of the Federal Fair Housing Act, asserting that Defendant was trying to evict 17 Plaintiff due to racial discrimination. (See Compl. at 3; Wilson Affidavit ¶ 4, Dkt. No. 3.) 18 Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (IFP App., Dkt. No. 2.) 19 On September 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed a “Request for Dismissal of Injunction,” stating that 20 she “would like to file a motion to dissolve Injunction. Case No. 19-cv-05698 KAW.” (Dkt. No. 21 6.) The dismissal appeared to based on Plaintiff having prevailed in state court on the eviction 22 matter. (Id., Exh. A.) On September 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a declination to magistrate judge 23 jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 7.) 24 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, and 25 REASSIGNS the case to a district judge with the recommendation that the case be dismissed. 26 Based on Plaintiff’s September 19, 2019 request for dismissal, it appears Plaintiff is attempting to 27 dismiss the instant case, which she had filed as a “Complaint Request for Injunction.” The 1 injunction be “dissolve[d].” (Dkt. No. 6 at 1.) No injunction was issued, however, and Plaintiff 2 || has now prevailed in the unlawful detainer action. 3 Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the district judge 4 || within 14 days of being served with a copy. See

(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); N.D. 5 Civil L.R. 72-3. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 6 || may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. IBEW Local 595 Trust Funds v. ACS 7 || Controls Corp., No. C-10-5568,

, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2011). 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: October 7, 2019 : 10 Ket A. clded ORE United States Magistrate Judge a 12

13

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28