(HC) Dickerson v. Vasquez

Filing 7

ORDER Directing Clerk of Court to Assign District Judge; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION to Strike Petition and Dismiss Action, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/5/19. This case is assigned to District Judge Dale A. Drozd and Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. New Case No. is: 1:19-cv-0408-DAD-JLT. Referred to Judge Drozd. Objections to F&R Due Within 21-Days. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GREGORY DICKERSON,

12

Petitioner,

13
v.

14

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT
TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
TO STRIKE PETITION AND DISMISS
ACTION

15
PATRICIA L. VASQUEZ, Warden,

16

No. 1:19-cv-00408-JLT (HC)

[21-DAY DEADLINE]

Respondent.

17

The petition purports to be filed by inmate Gregory Dickerson. Within the petition,

18
19

however, the petitioner is named as: “Brandon Favor, LLP, Miller & Miller,” “Brandon Favor-

20

El,” and “Cochran Law Firm.” Brandon Alexander Favor (aka Brandon Favor-El) is currently

21

incarcerated at California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, California and is well-known to

22

this Court. On numerous occasions in the past, Mr. Favor has attempted this scheme of

23

misrepresenting himself as an attorney, paralegal, or employee within a law firm and filing a

24

petition on behalf of another inmate. The Court has repeatedly admonished Mr. Favor that he

25

could not represent another party. Mr. Favor persisted in these ruses until the Court declared him

26

to be a vexatious litigant on September 27, 2017, in Favor v. Wimfroy, 1:17-cv-00944-AWI-

27

JLT.1 The Court concludes that this is just another malicious and frivolous attempt by Mr. Favor

28

1

Petitioner has also been declared a vexatious litigant in the Central District of California. See Favor v. Harper,

1

1

to abuse the judicial process.

2
3

ORDER
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to assign a District Judge to the case.

4

RECOMMENDATION

5

The Court RECOMMENDS that the petition be STRICKEN and the action be

6

DISMISSED. This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District

7

Court Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B)

8

and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District

9

of California.

10

Within twenty-one days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written

11

objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

12

Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s

13

ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the specified time

14

may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

15

Cir. 1991).

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 5, 2019

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2017 WL 132830 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2017).

2