JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BRANDON CHE LEE, ) NO. CV 19-5260-DMG (KS) Plaintiff, ) 12 ) v. ) 13 ) ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL 14 || PRISON WARDEN, et al, ) 15 Defendants. 16 || ————_____________) 17 18 On June 17, 2019, Plaintiff, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a “criminal 19 || complaint.” (Dkt. No. 1.) The complaint states that Plaintiff is suing the Warden at the Federal 20 || Correctional Institute — Terminal Island (“FCI-TI”) and various prison staff members 21 || “involved in this complaint.” The complaint consists of allegations that he is being held 22 || illegally because his criminal conviction was fraudulent, that inmates made loud noises that 23 || kept him awake, that staff poisoned Plaintiffs food which caused him to flatulate, that staff 24 || and inmates turned a fan towards his cell because of his flatulence, that the fan made him cold 25 || and sick and caused him to cough up “dirty pus,” that his knee hurts so he wants to be moved 26 || to a lower bunk in a different unit but staff will not accommodate him, and that inmates 27 || “fumbled [their] penis[es]” in front of him, all of which he calls torture. (See generally id.) 28 || Plaintiff does not identify, however, the relief he seeks from the Court or the laws or

1 || constitutional provisions he believes have been violated. As such, the complaint violates Rule 2 || 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim 3 || upon which relief can be granted. See FED. R. Clv. P. 8; United States ex rel. Cafasso v. Gen. 4 || Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2011) (complaint violates Rules 8 if a 5 || defendant would have difficulty understanding and responding to it); see also

|| 1915A(b) (Congress requires district courts to dismiss civil rights complaints brought by 7 || prisoners if the court determines that the complaint, or any portion thereof, fails to state a claim 8 || upon which relief can be granted). 9 10 In addition, on June 17, 2019, the Court notified Plaintiff that he had failed to pay the 11 || filing fee and had not filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 2.) On July 5, 12 || 2019, after more than two weeks had passed and Plaintiff had not responded to the Court’s 13 || notification, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, no later than July 26, 2019, why the 14 || action should not be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee or obtain authorization to 15 || proceed without prepayment of the fee. (Dkt. No. 4.) 16 |] \\ 17 |} \\ 18 \\ 19 \\ 20 |} \\ 21 |} \\ 22 || \\ 23 |} \\ 24 |} \\ 25 |} \\ 26 |} \\ 27 |} \\ 28 |} \\

1 More than 30 days have now passed since the Court issued its June 17, 2019 2 || notification, and more than two weeks have passed since Plaintiffs July 26, 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: September 9, 2019 9 Jn. 10 OLLY M. GEE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 Presented by: 14 15 1s || Doan £- Perensn 1 KAREN L. STEVENSON 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 This is Plaintiff’s fourth lawsuit in the past year involving a “criminal complaint” presenting the same general set of allegations. See Brandon Che Lee v. Unknown, No. 2:18-cv-09828-DMG-KS (Mar. 5, 2019); Brandon Che Lee v. 27 Warden et al, No. 2:19-cv-02811-DMG-KS (Jun. 17, 2019); Brandon Che Lee v. Warden, No. 2:19-cv-04865-DMG-KS. Plaintiff has several additional cases pending. See, e.g., Brandon Lee v. Unknown, CV 19-5503-DMG (KS); Brandon Che 28 | Lee v. FCI TI Warden, CV 19-6117-DMG (KS). In all of these cases, Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee or request to proceed in forma pauperis.