1 2 JS-6 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BRANDON CHE LEE, ) NO. CV 19-5503-DMG (KS) Plaintiff, ) 12 ) v. ) 13 ) ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL 14 || UNKNOWN, et al, 15 Defendants. ) 16 || ————_____________) 17 18 On June 24, 2019, Plaintiff, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a “criminal 19 || complaint.” (Dkt. No. 1.) The complaint does not identify the relief Plaintiff seeks or the laws 20 || or constitutional provisions that Plaintiff believes have been violated. (See generally id.) 21 || Plaintiff states that he is suing the Warden at the Federal Correctional Institute — Terminal 22 || Island (“FCI-TI’) and “Trust Fund, Administrator of the Kitchen, Staff Montoya, Kitchen 23 || Staff Williamson, Staff Paige, all of the kitchen staff, female staff, Staff Williams, Metz, 24 || Kitchen Staff Johnson, and all of the staff who included in the complaint.” (/d.) (errors and 25 || redundancies in original). The vast majority of the allegations contained in the six-page 26 || Complaint concern fellow inmates either poisoning Plaintiff's food or “fumbl[ing] [their] 27 || penis[es]” in front of him as well as automated phone messages that Plaintiff received when 28 || he tried to call relatives. (/d.)

1 The Complaint does not identify the relief Plaintiff seeks from the Court or the laws or 2 || constitutional provisions he believes have been violated. It is also unclear from the Complaint 3 || whom Plaintiff is suing, the number of claims he is asserting, and the factual and legal basis 4 || for those claims, the Complaint violates Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is 5 || subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. As such, the 6 || complaint violates Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is subject to dismissal 7 || for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See FED. R. CIv. P. 8; United 8 || States ex rel. Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2011) 9 || (complaint violates Rules 8 if a defendant would have difficulty understanding and responding 10 || to it); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (Congress requires district courts to dismiss civil rights 11 || complaints brought by prisoners if the court determines that the complaint, or any portion 12 || thereof, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted). 13 14 Also on June 24, 2019, the Court notified Plaintiff that he had failed to pay the filing 15 || fee and had not filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 2.) On July 8, 2019, 16 || after more than two weeks had passed and Plaintiff had not responded to the Court’s 17 || notification, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, no later than July 29, 2019, why the 18 |} action should not be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee or obtain authorization to 19 || proceed without prepayment of the fee. (Dkt. No. 4.) 20 |} \\ 21 |} \\ 22 || \\ 23 |} \\ 24 |} \\ 25 |} \\ 26 |} \\ 27 |} \\ 28 |} \\

1 More than 30 days have now passed since the Court issued its June 24, 2019 2 || notification, and more than two weeks have passed since Plaintiffs July 29, 2019 deadline for 3 || paying the filing fee or filing a request to proceed without prepayment of the fee. To date, 4 || Plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee nor requested to proceed in forma pauperis.' In light 5 || of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action is 6 || DISMISSED. 7 8 |} DATED: August 20, 2019 9 10 LLY M. GEE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 Presented by: 14 15 1s || DSaen Blesenson 1 KAREN L. STEVENSON 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 This is Plaintiffs fourth lawsuit involving the same set of allegations that he has filed in this Court in the past year. See Brandon Che Lee v. Unknown, No. 2:18-cv-09828-DMG-KS (Mar. 5, 2019); Brandon Che Lee v. Warden et al, No. 27 2:19-cv-02811-DMG-KS (Jun. 17, 2019); Brandon Che Lee v. Warden et al, No. 2:19-cv-04865-DMG-KS. In all of these prior cases, Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee or request to proceed in forma pauperis. Two of these prior cases have been 28 dismissed, and the Court has issued an Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal in the third. Plaintiffhas a fifth lawsuit pending. See Brandon Che Lee vy. FCI TI Warden et al, No. 2:19-cv-06117-DMG-KS.