1 2 3 4 5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 BRANDON CHE LEE, ) NO. CV 19-6117-DMG (KS) 11 ) Plaintiff, 12 ) v. ) 13 ) ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL 14 FCI-TI WARDEN, et al, ) ) 15 Defendants. ) 16 _________________________________ )

17 18 On July 16, 2019, Plaintiff, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a “criminal 19 complaint” (hereinafter, the “Complaint”). [Doc. # 1.] The Complaint does not identify the 20 relief Plaintiff seeks or the laws or constitutional provisions that Plaintiff believes have been 21 violated. (See generally id.) Plaintiff states that he is suing the Warden at the Federal 22 Correctional Institute – Terminal Island (“FCI-TI”) and, inter alia, “Trust Fund, uninformed 23 person, Staff Wong, Kitchen Staff Williamson, and Administrator . . . and all the staff who 24 involved in this Complaint.” (Complaint at 1) (errors in original). The vast majority of the 25 allegations contained in the six-page Complaint concern fellow inmates either poisoning 26 Plaintiff’s food or “fumbl[ing] [their] penis[es]” in front of him as well as automated phone 27 messages that Plaintiff received when he tried to call relatives. (Id.) 28 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. As such, the Complaint violates Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil 5 Procedure and is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 6 granted. See FED. R. CIV. P. 8; United States ex rel. Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 7

(9th Cir. 2011) (complaint violates Rules 8 if a defendant would have 8 difficulty understanding and responding to it); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (Congress 9 requires district courts to dismiss civil rights complaints brought by prisoners if the court 10 determines that the complaint, or any portion thereof, fails to state a claim upon which relief 11 can be granted). 12 13 Also on July 16, 2019, the Court notified Plaintiff that he had failed to pay the filing 14 fee and had not filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. [Doc. # 2.] On August 19, 2019, 15 after more than two weeks had passed and Plaintiff had not responded to the Court’s 16 notification, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, no later than September 9, 2019, why 17 the action should not be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee or obtain authorization to 18 proceed without prepayment of the fee. [Doc. # 4.] 19 \\ 20 \\ 21 \\ 22 \\ 23 \\ 24 \\ 25 \\ 26 \\ 27 \\ 28 \\ 1 More than 90 days have now passed since the Court issued its July 16, 2019 2 || notification, and two months have passed since Plaintiff’s September 9, 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: November 8, 2019 9 10 LLY M. GEE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 Presented by: 14 15 Doe 4: Beeronson 7 KAREN L. STEVENSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 || ——_———_ ! Plaintiff has now filed at least a half dozen complaints involving similar allegations in the past year. See Brandon 26 C. Lee v. Warden et al, 2:19-cv-07744-DMG-KS; Brandon Che Lee v. Warden, 2:19-cv-7746-DMG-KS; Brandon Che Lee y. Unknown, No. 2:18-cv-09828-DMG-KS (Mar. 5, 2019); Brandon Che Lee vy. Warden et al, No. 2:19-cv-02811-DMG- 27 KS (Jun. 17, 2019); Brandon Che Lee v. Warden et al, No. 2:19-cv-04865-DMG-KS (Sept. 9, 2019); Brandon Lee v. Unknown, 2:19-cv-05503-DMG-KS (Aug. 20, 2019). In all of these prior cases, Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee or request 28 proceed in forma pauperis. To date, four of these prior cases have been dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee or request to proceed IFP, and the Court has issued Orders to Show Cause re: Dismissal in the other two.