Case 2:22-cv-03859-GW-KS Document 8 Filed 07/21/22 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:22

1 JS-6 2 3 4 5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 KUM NAM LEE, ) NO. CV 22-03859 GW (KS) 11 Plaintiff, )

12 v. )

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

17 18 On June 3, 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, and Plaintiff having a “low income or Section 8” application denied. (Id.) 22 23 At the outset, the Complaint violates Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 24 is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Fed. 25 R. Civ. P. 8; United States ex rel. Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc.,

, 26 1059 (9th Cir. 2011) (complaint violates Rules 8 if a defendant would have difficulty 27 understanding and responding to it). 28 1 Case 2:22-cv-03859-GW-KS Document 8 Filed 07/21/22 Page 2of2 Page ID #:23

1 Moreover, on June 6, 2022, the Court notified Plaintiff that Plaintiff had failed to pay 2 || the filing fee and had not filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 2.) On June 3 |} 21, 2022, 15 days after the Court notified Plaintiff about the filing fee, the Court ordered 4 || Plaintiff to show cause, no later than July 5, 2022, why the action should not be dismissed for 5 || failure to pay the filing fee or obtain authorization to proceed without prepayment of the fee 6 || (“OSC”). (Dkt. No. 5.) The Court also expressly warned Plaintiff that his failure to timely 7 || comply with the OSC “will result in a recommendation of dismissal of this case.” (/d. at 2.) 9 It has now been well over a month since the Court first notified Plaintiff that he had not 10 || paid the filing fee. (Dkt. No. 2.) To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the OSC, paid the 11 || filing fee, requested to proceed in forma pauperis, or made any contact with the Court aside 12 || from indicating his intention to file a notice of appeal. (See Dkt. Nos. 4, 6, 7.) In light of the 13 || foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action is DISMISSED. 14 15 |} DATED: July 21, 2022 16 Aforge 7 GEORGE H. WU ig UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19 20 Presented by: 21 22 03 Foun feossnsm 04 KAREN L. STEVENSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28