Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-07231/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-07231-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARY D. WILSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF MONTANA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-07231-HSG 

ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION AND 

DENYING MOTIONS FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. Nos. 9, 10, 15

On December 11, 2018, Magistrate Judge Ryu denied Plaintiff Mary Wilson’s application 

to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered Plaintiff to pay the $400 filing fee on or before 

December 28, 2018. Dkt. No. 7. Plaintiff had additionally moved to seal the case. Dkt. No. 4. 

Judge Freeman denied Plaintiff’s motion to seal on November 27, 2018, and Plaintiff filed a 

motion for reconsideration of Judge Freeman’s order on December 28, 2018. Dkt. Nos. 5, 9.

Magistrate Judge Ryu’s Report and Recommendation advised the Court to dismiss the case 

without prejudice and deny Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider as moot. See Dkt. No. 10. That 

Report and Recommendation was eminently reasonable based on the facts before Magistrate Judge 

Ryu at the time. On January 4, 2019, however, Plaintiff belatedly paid the $400 filing fee. Dkt. 

No. 12. Because Plaintiff has now paid the filing fee, the Court declines to adopt Magistrate 

Judge Ryu’s Report and Recommendation to dismiss the case, and finds that the Plaintiff should 

be permitted to serve the complaint on the Defendants. Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider Magistrate 

Judge Ryu’s order denying Plaintiff’s IFP request is DENIED as moot. 

With respect to Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, the Court finds Judge Freeman’s 

order denying Plaintiff’s motion to seal correct, well-reasoned and thorough, and therefore 

DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider.

Case 4:18-cv-07231-HSG Document 16 Filed 02/14/19 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Because she is not proceeding IFP, Plaintiff must comply with Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 4, which requires Plaintiff to file a summons that she then will be responsible for 

serving on Defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Because summons has not yet issued, the case 

management conference previously set for February 26, 2019 is CONTINUED to April 2, 2019 at 

2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA. The Court DIRECTS the 

parties to submit a joint case management statement on or before March 26, 2019.

The Court advises Plaintiff that the Legal Help Center at both the San Francisco and 

Oakland Federal Courthouses provides free information and limited-scope legal advice to pro se 

litigants in civil cases. Services are provided by appointment only. An appointment may be 

scheduled by either: (1) signing up in the appointment book located outside the door of 

the Legal Help Center in San Francisco or Oakland, or (2) calling (415) 782-8982. The Court 

strongly encourages Plaintiff to take advantage of this resource.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

2/14/2019

Case 4:18-cv-07231-HSG Document 16 Filed 02/14/19 Page 2 of 2