(PC) Favor VEXATIOUS LITIGANT v. Corcoran State Prison et al

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING #7 Findings and Recommendations Regarding Denial of Plaintiff's #7 Motion to Proceed IFP signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/09/2019. Twenty-One Day Deadline. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRANDON ALEXANDER FAVOR,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01325-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

CORCORAN STATE PRISON, et al.,
(ECF Nos. 2, 7)

15

Defendants.
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

16

Plaintiff Brandon Alexander Favor (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in

17
18

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on September

19

23, 2019.
On September 25, 2019, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and

20
21

recommendations that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied pursuant to

22

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and that Plaintiff be required to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full to proceed

23

with this action. (ECF No. 7.) Those findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and

24

contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after

25

service. (Id. at 2–3.) On October 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and

26

recommendations, together with a renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 8,

27

9.)

28

///
1

1

In his objections, which are rambling and difficult to understand, Plaintiff presents no

2

grounds that warrant overturning the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations. Plaintiff

3

presents arguments apparently relating to the merits of this action, and then sets forth his

4

requested relief. Plaintiff has also attached more than 100 pages of unreferenced and

5

unincorporated exhibits. (ECF No. 8.) None of the provided arguments or exhibits address the

6

Magistrate Judge’s findings that Plaintiff is subject to the “three strikes” bar under 28 U.S.C.

7

§ 1915(g), or that Plaintiff’s allegations fail to satisfy the imminent danger exception to section

8

1915(g).

9

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a

10

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s

11

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations are

12

supported by the record and proper analysis.

13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

14

1.

15
16

are adopted in full;
2.

17
18

The findings and recommendations, (ECF No. 7), issued on September 25, 2019,

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 2) is denied; and

3.

Within twenty-one (21) days following the date of service of this order, Plaintiff

19

shall pay the $400.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action. If Plaintiff fails

20

to pay the filing fee within the specified time, this action will be dismissed without

21

further notice.

22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

October 9, 2019

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
25
26
27
28
2