Case 2:22-cv-02304-GW-KS Document 5 Filed 05/24/22 Page 1 of 2 Page IDJ #S:15-6

1 2 3 4 5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 KUM NAM LEE, ) NO. CV 22-02304 GW (KS) 11 Plaintiff, )

12 v. )

) 13 ) ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL PROLAND MANAGEMENT, 14 ) Defendant. ) 15 _________________________________ ) 16

17 18 On April 4, 2022, Plaintiff, a California resident proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights 19 complaint under

(the “Complaint”). (Dkt. No. 1.) The Complaint is a single 20 page suing Defendant Proland Management concerning a writ of attachment imposed on an 21 asset of Plaintiff’s, as well as Plaintiff having a “low income or Section 8 apartment 22 [application] den[i]ed . . . .” (Id.) 23 24 At the outset, the Complaint fails to describe what specific acts on the part of Defendant 25 constituted unconstitutional conduct. The Complaint, therefore, violates Rule 8 of the Federal 26 Rules of Civil Procedure and is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which 27 relief can be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8; see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

, 678 28 (2009) (Rule 8 “demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me 1 Case 2:22-cv-02304-GW-KS Document5 Filed 05/24/22 Page 2of2 Page ID #:16

1 || accusation” and a complaint is insufficient under Rule 8 “if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ 2 || devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’’’) (citation omitted). 4 Moreover, on April 6, 2022, the Court notified Plaintiff that Plaintiff had failed to pay 5 || the filing fee and had not filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 2.) On April 6 || 18, 2022, 12 days after the Court notified Plaintiff about the filing fee without a response from 7 || Plaintiff, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, no later than May 9, 2022, why the action 8 || should not be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee or obtain authorization to proceed 9 || without prepayment of the fee (“OSC”). (Dkt. No. 4.) The Court also expressly warned 10 || Plaintiff that his failure to timely comply with the OSC “will result in a recommendation of 11 || dismissal of this case.” (/d. at 2.) 12 13 It has now been well over a month since the Court first notified Plaintiff that he had not 14 || paid the filing fee. (Dkt. No. 2.) To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the OSC, paid the 15 || filing fee, requested to proceed in forma pauperis, or made any contact with the Court since 16 || filing the Complaint. In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND 17 || ADJUDGED that this action is DISMISSED. 18 19 |} DATED: May 24, 2022 20 forge Be ve

1 GEORGE H. WU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 Presented by: 25 26 07 Fyn Lh: Seosensn 28 KAREN L. STEVENSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE