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 20-2381-DMG (KS) 11 ) Plaintiff, 12 ) v. ) 13 ) ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL 14 UNKNOWN, ) ) 15 Defendants. ) 16 _________________________________ ) 17 18 On March 12, 2020, Plaintiff, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a “criminal 19 complaint” (the “Complaint”). (Dkt. No. 1.) The Complaint does not identify the relief 20 Plaintiff seeks or the laws or constitutional provisions that Plaintiff believes have been 21 violated. (See generally id.) Further, the Complaint consists almost exclusively of allegations 22 that inmates who are not named as defendants either poisoned Plaintiff’s food or “fumbled 23 [their] penis[es]” in front of him as well as allegations that, when Plaintiff tried to call his 24 family, he received an automated message informing him that his name and voice do not 25 match. (Id.) 26 27 As such, the complaint violates Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is 28 subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See FED.R. 1 || Civ. P. 8; United States ex rel. Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc.,

, 1059 2 || (9th Cir. 2011) (complaint violates Rules 8 if a defendant would have difficulty understanding 3 || and responding to it); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (Congress requires district courts to 4 || dismiss civil rights complaints brought by prisoners if the court determines that the complaint, 5 || or any portion thereof, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted). 6 7 Furthermore, on March 12, 2020, the Court notified Plaintiff that he had failed to pay 8 || the filing fee and had not filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 2.) On March 9 || 30, 2020, after more than two weeks had passed and Plaintiff had not responded to the Court’s 10 || notification, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, no later than April 20, 2020, why the 11 } } action should not be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee or obtain authorization to 12 || proceed without prepayment of the fee. (Dkt. No. 4.) 13 14 More than two months have now passed since the Court issued its March 12, 2020 15 || notification, and four weeks have passed since Plaintiff's April 20, 2020 deadline for paying 16 || the filing fee or filing a request to proceed without prepayment of the fee. To date, Plaintiff 17 || has neither paid the filing fee nor requested to proceed in forma pauperis.‘ In light of the 18 || foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action is DISMISSED. 19 20 || DATED: May 26, 2020 Dn , 1 LLY M. GEE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 || Presented by: 23 * KAREN L. STEVENSON 24 || UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 |! Plaintiff has now filed more than a half dozen complaints involving similar allegations and ending in dismissal for failure to pay the filing fee or file a request to proceed IFP. See Brandon C. Lee v. Warden et al, 2:19-cv-07744-DMG-KS 27 (Nov. 8, 2019); Brandon Che Lee v. Warden, 2:19-cv-7746-DMG-KS (Nov. 8, 2019); Brandon Che Lee v. Unknown, No. 2:18-cv-09828-DMG-KS (Mar. 5, 2019); Brandon Che Lee v. Warden et al, No. 2:19-cv-02811-DMG-KS (Jun. 17, 2019); 28 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); Brandon Che Lee v. FCI-TI Warden et al, 2:19-cv-06117-DMG-KS (Nov. 8, 2019).