1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BRANDON CHE LEE, ) NO. CV 19-9519-DMG (KS) 11 ) Plaintiff, 12 ) v. ) 13 ) ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL 14 WARDEN, et al., ) ) 15 Defendants. ) 16 _________________________________ ) 17 18 On November 5, 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, to the best of the Court’s 23 understanding, 26 other individuals, including, inter alia, “Avery, Romes, Esqueda, Carrinc, 24 Paronto, Meltz, Smith, Adams, Siccilio, female Carrillo, female Andrete,” and “all of the staff 25 who [are] involved in this complaint.” (Complaint at 1) (errors in original). The vast majority 26 of the allegations contained in the 19-page Complaint and the Trulincs emails attached to it 27 concern prison staff and fellow inmates either poisoning Plaintiff’s food or “fumbl[ing] [their] 28 penis[es]” in front of him as well as automated phone messages that Plaintiff received when 1 he tried to call relatives. (Id.) There may also be an allegation of sexual harassment by prison 2 staff. (See id.) 3 4 As stated above, the Complaint does not identify the relief Plaintiff seeks or the laws 5 or constitutional provisions that Plaintiff believes have been violated. It is also unclear from 6 the Complaint whom Plaintiff is suing, the number of claims he is asserting, and the factual 7 and legal basis for those claims. As such, the Complaint violates Rule 8 of the Federal Rules 8 of Civil Procedure and is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can 9 be granted. See FED. R. CIV. P. 8; United States ex rel. Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., 10 Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2011) (complaint violates Rules 8 if a defendant would 11 have difficulty understanding and responding to it); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (Congress 12 requires district courts to dismiss civil rights complaints brought by prisoners if the court 13 determines that the complaint, or any portion thereof, fails to state a claim upon which relief 14 can be granted). 15 16 On November 5, 2019, the Court notified Plaintiff that he had failed to pay the filing 17 fee and had not filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. [Doc. # 2.] On November 22, 18 2019, after more than two weeks had passed and Plaintiff had not responded to the Court’s 19 notification, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, no later than December 6, 2019, why 20 the action should not be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee or obtain authorization to 21 proceed without prepayment of the fee. [Doc. # 4.] 22 23 More than five weeks have now passed since the Court issued its November 5, 2019 24 notification, and three weeks have passed since Plaintiff’s December 6, 2019 deadline for 25 paying the filing fee or filing a request to proceed without prepayment of the fee. To date, 26 Plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee nor requested to proceed in forma pauperis.1 In light 27

28 1 Plaintiff has now filed more than a half dozen complaints involving similar allegations in the past year. See Brandon c. Lee v. Warden et al, 2:19-cv-07746-DMG-KS (Nov. 8, 2019); Brandon C. Lee v. Warden et al, 2:19-cv-07744- 1 || of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action is 2 || DISMISSED. 3 4 || DATED: January 2, 2020 5 Jn, 6 OLLY M. GEE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 Presented by: 10 11 || Dace 2: floes 13 KAREN L. STEVENSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DMG-KS (Nov. 8, 2019); Brandon Che Lee y. FCI TI Warden et al, 2:19-cv-06117-DMG-KS (Nov. 8, 2019); Brandon Che Lee vy. Unknown, No. 2:18-cv-09828-DMG-KS (Mar. 5, 2019); Brandon Che Lee v. Warden et al, No. 2:19-cv-02811- 27 DMG-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 28 request to proceed in forma pauperis and, to date, all of these cases have been dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee or request to proceed IFP.