Favor VEXATIOUS LITIGANT v. Black Lives Matter et al

Filing 4

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that #3 Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis be DENIED and Plaintiff be Ordered to Pay the Filing Fee in Full re #1 Complaint filed by Brandon Alexander Favor VEXATIOUS LITIGANT signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 9/14/2020. Referred to Judge Drozd. Objections to F&R due within twenty-one (21) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

BRANDON ALEXANDER FAVOR,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

v.
BLACK LIVES MATTER, et al.,

13

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-01165-DAD-SKO
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DENY PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS
(Doc. 3)
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

14
15

I.

INTRODUCTION

16

Plaintiff, Brandon Alexander Favor, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil action

17

under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which he filed on August 19, 2020. (Doc. 1.)

18

Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915

19

(“Section 1915”) on September 10, 2020. (Doc. 3.) Plaintiff’s application should be DENIED for

20

two reasons: (1) his application demonstrates he is not entitled to in forma pauperis status under

21

Section 1915(a); and (2) since he has three strikes under Section 1915(g), his allegations fail to

22

show imminent danger of serious physical injury.

23
24

II.

PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)

25

A.

26

An indigent party may be granted permission to proceed “in forma pauperis” upon

27

submitting an affidavit showing his or her inability to pay the required fees. 28 USC § 1915(a).

Legal Standard

28
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

The determination of whether a plaintiff is indigent and therefore unable to pay the filing fee falls
within the court’s sound discretion. California Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th
Cir. 1991) (reversed on other grounds).
“The trial court must be careful to avoid construing the statute so narrowly that a litigant is
presented with a Hobson’s choice between eschewing a potentially meritorious claim or foregoing
life’s plain necessities.” Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984) (citing Potnick
v. Eastern State Hosp., 701 F.2d 243, 244 (2d Cir. 1983) (per curiam). See also Carson v. Polley,
689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). “But, the same even-handed care must be employed to assure
that federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public expense, either frivolous claims or
the remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own
oar.” Temple, 586 F. Supp. at 850 (citing Brewster v. N. Am. Van Lines, Inc., 461 F.2d 649, 651

12

(7th Cir. 1972)). “If an applicant has the wherewithal to pay court costs, or some part thereof,

13

without depriving himself and his dependents (if any there be) of the necessities of life, then he

14

should be required, in the First Circuit’s phrase, to ‘put his money where his mouth is.’” Williams

15

v. Latins, 877 F.2d 65 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Temple, 586 F. Supp. at 851(quoting In re Stump, 449

16

F.2d 1297, 1298 (1st Cir. 1971) (per curiam)). Many courts have held that petitioners with modest

17

cash reserves are not entitled to in forma pauperis status within the intendment of 28 U.S.C. §

18

1915(a) for the purpose of filing fees, initial service of process costs and the like. Temple, 586 F.

19

Supp. at 850–51.

20

B.

21

According to his application, Plaintiff has received unspecified income over the past twelve

22

months, including $500,000 in interest income. (Doc. 3 at 1.) Plaintiff also has $27,284,279.87 in

23

cash. (Id. at 2.) Based on these representations, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not made the

24

showing required by Section 1915(a) that he is unable to pay the required fees for this action.

25

Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s application to proceed without

26

prepayment of fees and costs be denied.

Discussion

27
28
2

1

III.

2

PLAINTIFF IS SUBJECT TO THE THREE-STRIKES PROVISION OF 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g) AND DOES NOT MEET THE IMMINENT DANGER EXCEPTION

3

Even if Plaintiff’s application established poverty, however, he is not entitled to proceed

4

without prepayments of fees because he has at least three strikes under Section 1915(g) and does

5

not qualify for the imminent danger exception.

6

A.

7

Section 1915(g) provides that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . under

8

this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any

9

facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds

10

that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the

11

prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.”

12

B.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Legal Standard

Discussion

The Court may take judicial notice of court records. United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d
873, 876 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004). Here, judicial notice is taken of four of Plaintiff’s many prior actions:
(1) Favor-El v. Rome, Case No. 1:15-cv-01865-LJO-EPG (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed on November 22,
2016 for failure to state a claim); (2) Favor v. State of California, Case No. 2:16-cv-02870-JGBJEM (C.D. Cal.) (dismissed on May 2, 2016 as frivolous, malicious, and for failure to state a claim);
(3) Favor-El v. Rihanna, et al., 2:15-cv-09502-JGB-JEM (C.D. Cal.) (dismissed on December 16,
2015 as frivolous, malicious, and for failure to state a claim); and (4) Favor-El v. United States of
America, Case No. 2:15-cv-01448-GEB-AC (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed on October 22, 2015 as
frivolous). As he has been previously informed1, Plaintiff is thus subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
and is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis in this action, unless he has shown that at the
time he filed this action, he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

24

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that he does not meet the imminent

25

danger exception. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007). Although

26
27
28

1

See, e.g., Favor v. Monae, Case No. 1:19-cv-00081-LJO-SKO (E.D. Cal.). It is also noteworthy that Plaintiff has
been deemed a vexatious litigant, has filed over fifty actions in this district alone, and has filed numerous other actions
in the other district courts in this state. Plaintiff has also filed actions under the surnames “Favor” and “Favor-El.”

3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Plaintiff’s allegations are largely incoherent, he appears to be alleging that Black Lives Matter, an
“orchestrated monument,” Michelle Obama, Reba Ann Stevens, and the record label Amaru
Records Incorporated violated the Eighth Amendment and right to due process in some manner and
caused him harm -- although the type of harm Plaintiff is alleging is indiscernible. (Doc. 1.) None
of Plaintiff’s allegations show he was under an imminent danger at the time he filed this action.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to allege an imminent danger of serious
physical injury necessary to bypass Section 1915(g)’s restriction on filing suit without prepayment
of the filing fee since he previously received three strikes. Plaintiff may not proceed in forma
pauperis and must pay the $400.00 filing fee if he wishes to litigate this action.

10
IV.

CONCLUSION and RECOMMENDATION

11
12

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

13

1. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3) be DENIED pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

14

§§ 1915(a) and (g); and

15

2. Plaintiff be ORDERED to pay the $400 initial filing fee in full to proceed with this

16

action.

17

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

18

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one

19

(21) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written

20

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

21

Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that the failure to file objections within the

22

specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings”

23

on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923

24

F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 14, 2020

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4

.