Brandon Che Lee v. Warden ( 2019 )

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 19-4865-DMG (KS) Plaintiff, ) 12 ) v. ) 13 ) ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL 14 || WARDEN, et al, ) 15 Defendants. 16 || ————_____________) 17 18 On June 4, 2019, Plaintiff, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a “criminal 19 || complaint.” (Dkt. No. 1.) The complaint does not identify the relief Plaintiff seeks or the laws 20 || or constitutional provisions that Plaintiff believes have been violated. (See generally id.) 21 || Further, although Plaintiff states that he is suing the Warden at the Federal Correctional 22 || Institute — Terminal Island (“FCI-TI’”), “Staff Mertz, Fabela, Montoya, Female Staff (2nd 23 || Time), Administrator of the Kitchen, and all of the staff who involved in this complaint,” the 24 || six-page complaint consists almost exclusively of allegations that inmates who are not named 25 || as defendants either poisoned Plaintiff's food or “fumbled [their] penis[es]” in front of him. 26 || As such, the complaint violates Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is subject 27 || to dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See FED. R. CIV. P. 28 || 8; United States ex rel. Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 1 |} 2011) (complaint violates Rules 8 if a defendant would have difficulty understanding and 2 || responding to it); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (Congress requires district courts to dismiss 3 || civil rights complaints brought by prisoners if the court determines that the complaint, or any 4 || portion thereof, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted). 5 6 In addition, on June 4, 2019, the Court notified Plaintiff that he had failed to pay the 7 || filing fee and had not filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 2.) On June 24, 8 || 2019, after more than two weeks had passed and Plaintiff had not responded to the Court’s 9 || notification, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, no later than July 11, 2019, why the 10 || action should not be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee or obtain authorization to 11 || proceed without prepayment of the fee. (Dkt. No. 4.) 12 |} \\ 13 |} \\ 14 \\ 1S |] \\ 16 |] \\ 17 |} \\ 18 \\ 19 \\ 20 |} \\ 21 |} \\ 22 |} \\ 23 |} \\ 24 |} \\ 25 |} \\ 26 |} \\ 27 |} \\ 28 |} \\ 1 More than 30 days have now passed since the Court issued its June 4, 2019 notification, 2 || and more than two weeks have passed since Plaintiff's July 11, 2019 deadline for paying the 3 || filing fee or filing a request to proceed without prepayment of the fee. To date, Plaintiff has 4 || neither paid the filing fee nor requested to proceed in forma pauperis.' In light of the 5 || foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action is DISMISSED. 6 7 || DATED: September 9, 2019 8 9 LLY M. GEE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 1] Presented by: 13 14 15 || Deen flsenson 16 KAREN L. STEVENSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25. YJ | This is Plaintiff's third lawsuit in the past year involving the same set of allegations. See Brandon Che Lee v. 26 || 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). In both of these prior cases, Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee or request to proceed in forma pauperis, and 27 || both cases have been dismissed. Plaintiff has several additional cases pending. See, e.g., Brandon Che Lee v. Prison Warden, CV 19-5260-DMG (KS); Brandon Lee v. Unknown, CV 19-5503-DMG (KS); Brandon Che Lee v. FCI TI Warden, 28 |] CV 19-6117-DMG (KS). In all of these pending cases, the Court has notified Plaintiff of his failure to either pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis.