Plaintiff Danny Atterbury filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. S S Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19 636(c). ECF No. 5. Good cause appearing, the court granted Plaintiff's application. ECF No. 7 at 20 1. The court, however, also found that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff's 21 allegations of state action were insufficient and the federal Fair Housing Act only protects against 22 discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. Id. at 1-2. 23 Thus, the court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Id. at 2. Plaintiff filed an amended 24 complaint that named new defendants and made new factual allegations. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff also 25 filed supplemental letters. ECF Nos. 11, 13, and 14. Amongst other things, Plaintiff raises the 26 specter of ADA violations and discusses the entanglement of the defendant entity with the 27 government. See ECF No. 13 at 1-2; ECF No. 14 at 1-2. 28 The court now ORDERS service of the complaint on Defendants. The Clerk of Court shall issue the summons. Furthermore, the U.S. Marshal for the Northern District of California shall 2 serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint, any amendments or attachments, 3 Plaintiff's affidavit and this order upon Defendant. 4 Because Defendants have not yet been served, the court CONTINUES the case management 5 conference from April 12, 2012 to June 14, 2012 at 10:30 a.m. at the Phillip Burton Federal Building 6 and United States Courthouse, Courtroom C, 15th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, 7 California.