1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 San Francisco Division 11 PERFECTO BAUER GARCIA, Case No. 24-cv-03221-LB

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER REASSIGNING CASE; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 14 CITY OF NAPA, et al., TO DISMISS 15 Defendants. Re: ECF Nos. 1, 14 16 17 The plaintiff, who represents himself and is proceeding in forma pauperis, sued Napa code- 18 enforcement and building officers after they issued citations to his parents (now deceased) for 19 code violations, did not approve proposals to repair damage to their home’s foundation, and 20 continue to issue citations to the plaintiff.1 Because the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, 21 the court screened the case under

(e)(2)(B) and issued an order (attached) 22 identifying deficiencies in the complaint: (1) there is no FTCA violation because there was no 23 action by the United States; (2) generally code-enforcement actions like these are within the City’s 24 police powers; (3) without federal claims, there is no federal-question jurisdiction, and there is no 25 diversity jurisdiction because the parties are not diverse; and (4) even if there were a viable federal 26 27 1 ] claim, the plaintiff did not allege facts relevant to whether he has standing to assert claims on his 2 || parents’ behalf or whether his claims are timely. The court allowed the plaintiff until October 14, 3 2024, to amend the complaint.” He did not. There are no viable claims. The case should be 4 || dismissed. 5 Because not all parties have appeared in the case and consented to magistrate-judge 6 || jurisdiction, the case must be reassigned. 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1); Williams v. King,

, 7 || 503-04 (9th Cir. 2017). The court directs the Clerk of Court to reassign the case to a district judge 8 and recommends that the newly assigned district judge dismiss the case. Any party must serve and 9 || file specific written objections to this recommendation within fourteen days after being served 10 || witha copy.

(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 72-3. Failure 11 to file a written objection within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district 12 || court’s order. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED. 14 Dated: October 21, 2024 LAE

LAUREL BEELER = 16 United States Magistrate Judge

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ? Order — ECF No. 27.