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 21-3697-DMG (KS) 11 ) Plaintiff, 12 ) v. ) 13 ) ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL 14 MDC WARDEN, et al., ) ) 15 Defendants. ) 16 _________________________________ )

17 18 On April 29, 2021, Plaintiff, who is in custody at the Los Angeles Metropolitan 19 Detention Center and proceeding pro se, filed a 26-page handwritten “criminal complaint” 20 (the “Complaint”). [Doc. # 1.] The Complaint does not identify the relief Plaintiff seeks or 21 the laws or constitutional provisions that Plaintiff believes have been violated. (See generally 22 id.) Further, the Complaint consists primarily of allegations about unidentified kidnappers, 23 allegations that inmates either poisoned Plaintiff’s food or “fumbled [their] penis[es]” in front 24 of him, and allegations that, when Plaintiff tried to call his family, he received an automated 25 message informing him that his name and voice do not match. 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 On April 29, 2021, the Court notified Plaintiff that he had failed to pay the filing fee 8 || and had not filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. [Doc. #2] On May 21, 2021, after 9 || three weeks had passed and Plaintiff had not responded to the Court’s notification, the Court 10 || ordered Plaintiff to show cause, no later than June 4, 2021, why the action should not be 11 || dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee or obtain authorization to proceed without 12 || prepayment of the fee. [Doc. # 4.] 13 14 Two months have now passed since the Court issued its April 29, 2021 notification, 15 || and nearly five weeks have passed since Plaintiff's June 4, 2021 deadline for paying the filing 16 || fee or filing a request to proceed without prepayment of the fee. To date, Plaintiff has not paid 17 || the filing fee or filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis.' In light of the foregoing, IT IS 18 |} HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action is DISMISSED. 19 20 |} DATED: July 8, 2021 1 OLLY M. GEE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 || Presented by: 23 - KAREN L. STEVENSON 24 || UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 Plaintiff has now filed nearly one dozen complaints involving similar allegations and ending in dismissal for failure to pay the fee or request to proceed IFP. See, e.g., Brandon Che Lee v. Warden et al, No. 2:20-cv-08588-DMG-KS (Nov. 28 30, 2020); Brandon Che Lee v. Warden et al, 2:20-cv-04787-DMG-KS (Aug. 4, 2020); see also Brandon Che Lee v. Warden et al, 2:20-cv-04787-DMG-KS at 2 n.1 (listing Plaintiff's complaints filed and dismissed prior to August 4, 2020).