Jae Jeong Lyu v. John Yutan ( 2020 )

1 2 JS-6 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAE JEONG LYU, Case No. 2:20-cv-00333-JVS-AFM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 13 v. 14 JOHN YUTAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On February 3, 2020, plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 19 (“IFP”) was denied: The complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be 20 granted; it was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); and leave 21 to amend would be futile. Accordingly, plaintiff was ordered to pay the full filing 22 fee within 30 days. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of the 23 February 3 order (ECF No. 6) was denied on April 9, 2020 (ECF No. 9), andPlaintiff 24 was ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to pay 25 the full filing fee. (ECF No. 11.) 26 On May 22, 2020, plaintiff filed his response to the order to show cause. (ECF 27 No. 12.) As previously found by the Court, the complaint does not allege a federal 28 civil rights cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and it is barred under Heck 1 || because success on plaintiffs claim herein would necessarily undermine □□□□□□□□□□□ 2 || criminal conviction. Nothing in plaintiff's response to the order to show cause 3 || changes those conclusions. 4 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this action be dismissed without prejudice 5 || for failure to pay the full filing fee. 7 | DATED: May 28, 2020 ow “Ly ° ss JAMESV.SELNA 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28