(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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?