Young Yil Jo v. Six Unknown Names Agents et al

Filing 6

ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL by Judge George H. Wu. To date, Plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee nor requested to proceed in forma pauperis. In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action is DISMISSED. (see document for further details). Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (hr)

1

JS-6

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

) NO. CV 20-7210-GW (KS)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
) ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL
SIX UNKNOWN NAMES AGENTS, )
et al,
)
)
Defendants.
_________________________________ )
YOUNG YIL JO,

17
18

On August 10, 2020, Plaintiff, a California state resident proceeding pro se, filed a civil

19

rights complaint “under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . . . Due Process Equal Rights No Discriminates

20

Mental Damages or Illegal for Price or National Origin” (the “Complaint”). (Dkt. No. 1.) The

21

Complaint is difficult to comprehend, with multiple words crossed out, handwritten

22

annotations written in the margins of most pages, and no description of the legal claims for

23

relief or relevant facts underpinning each claim. (See generally id.).

24
25

As such, the Complaint violates Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is

26

subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See FED. R.

27

CIV. P. 8; United States ex rel. Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1059

28

1

1

(9th Cir. 2011) (complaint violates Rules 8 if a defendant would have difficulty understanding

2

and responding to it).

3
4

On August 11, 2020, the Court notified Plaintiff that he had failed to pay the filing fee

5

and had not filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 2.) On September 4, 2020,

6

after more than three weeks had passed and Plaintiff had not responded to the Court’s

7

notification, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, no later than September 18, 2020, why

8

the action should not be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee or obtain authorization to

9

proceed without prepayment of the fee. (Dkt. No. 4.)

10
11

On October 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Reply to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, which

12

appears to be a copy of the original Complaint and contains the same defects. (Dkt. No. 5.)

13

Furthermore, Plaintiff neither paid the filing fee nor filed an application to proceed in forma

14

pauperis as ordered by the Court.1

15

\\

16

\\

17

\\

18

\\

19

\\

20

\\

21

\\

22

\\

23

\\

24

\\

25
26
27
28

1
This is Plaintiff’s third action in which he filed the same incoherent complaint against the same defendants, the
Court notified him about the defects in the complaint and his failure to either pay the filing fee or an application to proceed
in forma pauperis, and Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s orders. See Young Yil Jo et al v. Six Unnamed Agents,
CV 20-1377-GW (KS) (Apr. 22, 2020); Young Yil Jo v. Six Unknown Names Agents, CV 20-3368-GW (KS) (June 18,
2020).

2

1

Nearly two months have now passed since the Court issued its August 11, 2020

2

notification, and more than three weeks have passed since Plaintiff’s September 18, 2020

3

deadline for paying the filing fee or filing a request to proceed without prepayment of the fee.

4

To date, Plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee nor requested to proceed in forma pauperis.

5

In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action is

6

DISMISSED.

7
8

DATED: October 13, 2020

9

________________________________
GEORGE H. WU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13

Presented by:

14
15
16
17

___________________________________
KAREN L. STEVENSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3