Favor v. California, State of et al

Filing 6

ORDER Granting Motion to Withdraw Complaint and Striking Motion for Extension of Time [ECF Nos. 3 , 5 ]. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 6/30/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jjg)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 BRANDON FAVOR, CDCR #G-60488; LUIS MANUEL GARCES, CDCR #V-47652, 10 Case No.: 3:17-cv-00587-CAB-JMA ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW COMPLAINT AND STRIKING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME Plaintiffs, 11 vs. 12 13 [ECF Nos. 3, 5] STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 On March 20, 2017, “Brandon Favor, LLP,” a prisoner incarcerated at California 18 Correctional Institution (“CCI”) in Tehachapi, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 19 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of a fellow inmate, Manuel Luis Garces. (ECF No. 1). 20 The Complaint is not signed by Garces, but is instead signed by Favor, who claims 21 to be a limited liability partnership doing business as “Miller & Miller Associates, 3307 22 West 43rd Street, Los Angeles, California.”1 (ECF No. 1 at 1, 8.) The pleading contains 23 constitutional catchphrases like “freedom from cruel and unusual punishment,” “equal 24 protection,” and “due process,” but it contains no factual allegations whatsoever, and it 25 26 27 28 1 According the California State Bar website, the address provided by Favor is for Halvor Thomas Miller, Jr., California State Bar #40247, an attorney who is no longer eligible to practice law in California. See http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/40247 (last visited June 29, 2017). 1 3:17-cv-00587-CAB-JMA 1 seeks injunctive relief preventing “further prosecution,” and ordering “immediate release 2 with or by bond/bail.” (Id. at 4-7.) 3 Neither Favor nor Garces paid the $400 civil filing fee required to commence a 4 civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), and neither had filed a Motion to Proceed In 5 Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Indeed, Brandon Favor, CDCR 6 #G-60488, is no longer entitled to proceed IFP as a result of his frivolous filing. See 7 Favor v. Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:15- 8 cv-01547-AJB (DHB) (Oct. 21, 2015) (Order denying leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 9 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)) (ECF No. 7); Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 10 2007) (court “‘may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without 11 the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at 12 issue.’”) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)). 13 Therefore, this case is subject to immediately dismissal for this reason alone. 14 However, on April 5, 2017, Plaintiff Garces filed a Motion requesting the 15 “withdrawal” of the Complaint “without prejudice,” acknowledging it was filed by Favor. 16 Garces also requests no further “document, motion, complaint or request … be filed on 17 [his] behalf … by Mr. Brandon Favor.” (ECF No. 3 at 1.) 18 Conclusion and Order 19 The Court construes Garces’ request as a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal and 20 GRANTS his Motion to Withdraw pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1) (ECF No. 3). The 21 case is DISMISSED without prejudice. Brandon Favor’s subsequent Motion for 22 Extension of Time (ECF No. 5) is STRICKEN from the record. 23 24 The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 30, 2017 25 26 27 28 2 3:17-cv-00587-CAB-JMA

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?