1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 YOUNG YIL JO, ) NO. CV 20-3368-GW (KS) 11 Plaintiff, ) 12 v. ) ) 13 ) ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL SIX UNKNOWN NAMES AGENTS, 14 ) et al, ) 15 Defendants. ) 16 _________________________________ ) 17 18 On April 10, 2020, Plaintiff, a California state resident proceeding pro se, filed a civil 19 rights complaint “under

. . . Due Process Equal Rights No Discriminates 20 Mental Damages or Illegal for Price or National Origin” (the “Complaint”). (Dkt. No. 1.) The 21 Complaint is difficult to comprehend, with multiple words crossed out, handwritten 22 annotations written in the margins of most pages, and no description of the legal claims for 23 relief or relevant facts underpinning each claim. (See generally id.) 24 25 As such, the Complaint violates Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is 26 subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Fed. R. 27 Civ. P. 8; United States ex rel. Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc.,

, 1059 28 1 (9th Cir. 2011) (complaint violates Rules 8 if a defendant would have difficulty understanding 2 and responding to it). 3 4 Also on April 10, 2020, the Court notified Plaintiff that he had failed to pay the filing 5 fee and had not filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 2.) On May 4, 2020, 6 after more than three weeks had passed and Plaintiff had not responded to the Court’s 7 notification, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, no later than May 25, 2020, why the 8 action should not be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee or obtain authorization to 9 proceed without prepayment of the fee. (Dkt. No. 4.) 10 11 On May 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Reply to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, which 12 appears to be a copy of the original Complaint and contains the same defects. (Dkt. No. 5.) 13 Furthermore, Plaintiff neither paid the filing fee nor filed an application to proceed in forma 14 pauperis as ordered by the Court.1 15 \\ 16 \\ 17 \\ 18 \\ 19 \\ 20 \\ 21 \\ 22 \\ 23 \\ 24 \\ 25 \\ 26 27 1 This is Plaintiff’s second action in which he filed the same incoherent complaint against the same defendants, the Court notified him about the defects in the complaint and his failure to either pay the filing fee or an application to proceed 28 in forma pauperis, and Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s orders. See Young Yil Jo et al v. Six Unnamed Agents, CV 20-1377-GW (KS) (Apr. 22, 2020). 1 More than two months have now passed since the Court issued its April 10, 2020 2 || notification, and more than three weeks have passed since Plaintiff's May 25, 2020 deadline 3 || for 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 of 5 || the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action is DISMISSED. 6 7 || DATED: June 18, 2020 Aft: By tle 9 GEORGE H. WU 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11 Presented by: 13 14 15 || PSaen £: fiwenson 16 KAREN L. STEVENSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28