Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Favor v. Wimfroy

United States District Court, E.D. California

September 5, 2017

BRANDON FAVOR, Petitioner,
v.
SHARON WIMFROY, et al., Respondents.

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DECLARE PETITIONER A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT [FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE]

          JENNIFER L. THURSTON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Petitioner Brandon Alexander Favor (aka Brandon Favor-El) is currently incarcerated at California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, California.

         On July 30, 2008, a jury convicted Petitioner of one count of first degree murder, two counts of attempted murder, and two counts of second degree robbery. On April 7, 2009, the Los Angeles County Superior Court sentenced him to an indeterminate term of life without the possibility of parole on the murder count and consecutive life terms on the two counts of attempted murder.

         Favor is well known to this Court. Since 2013, Favor has filed at least twenty-seven habeas petitions and thirteen § 1983 complaints in the Eastern District of California, as well as numerous additional petitions and complaints in the Central and Southern Districts of California. For reasons discussed below, these petitions have been dismissed or transferred. In addition, he has attempted to file countless other pleadings which were rejected by the Court and returned to him for clear deficiencies rendering them ineligible to be filed.

         On July 10, 2017, Petitioner commenced this action by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus. After reviewing the petition, and in light of Petitioner's numerous prior filings, the Court issued an order directing Petitioner to show cause within ten days why he should not be declared a vexatious litigant. Petitioner requested and was granted an extension of time to file a response to the order show cause. The time for filing a response has now passed and Petitioner has failed to file a response to the order. Rather, Petitioner has submitted an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. Yet again, the petition is rambling, incoherent, and nonsensical.

         For reasons discussed below, the Court RECOMMENDS that Petitioner be declared a vexatious litigant in this district.[1]

         DISCUSSION

         A. Problems with Dismissed and Pending Habeas Corpus Petitions

         All of the federal habeas corpus petitions that this Court has reviewed suffer from numerous procedural and substantive problems which make them subject to dismissal. The instant petition and amended petition are no different.

         Of the petitions and complaints Petitioner has filed, all of them are incoherent, vague, rambling, and conclusory. Some of them are unsigned. As an example, Petitioner's amended petition in this case states the following as his ground for relief:

Petitioner finding difficulty attaching connections pivoting evidence reliance and actioned descriptions however must applicate claim issue as an attached criteria referencing legal oppositions at appeal originally not declaring claim some with evidence used during jury trial petitioner located claims are factualize claims honestly as collected and receives court order additionally finding constitutional remission to applicate either property claim, evidentiary finding claim, equal protection relief petitioner other than appeal evidentiary claim protections seeks to remedy otherwise it is the property of the district attorney being presented petitioner assisting other persons finds some existing evidence collectively grounded relieving parties also as desirable to present or receive legal remedy same protections evidence district attorney requires to effect or authorize relief claim petitioner is a paralegal-legal assistance and is not possessing illegal action whatsoever

(Doc. 9 at 3.)

         A petition for writ of habeas corpus must specify the grounds for relief; state facts supporting each ground; state the relief requested; be printed, typewritten, or legibly handwritten; and be signed under penalty of perjury. See Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The petition must be on the form approved by the Court or must substantially follow the form. See Rule 2(d) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The petition must make specific factual allegations that would entitle the petitioner to relief if they are true. O'Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990). Summary dismissal is ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.