United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN
DISTRICT JUDGE TO ACTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS BE DENIED (ECF NO. 2)
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Brandon Alexander Favor (“Plaintiff”) is a state
prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated
this action on September 23, 2019, together with a motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.)
Plaintiff has not yet submitted a certified copy of his
prison trust account statement.
is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which provides that
“[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action .
. . under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more
prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any
facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the
United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent
danger of serious physical injury.” Plaintiff has
been informed in prior cases that he is subject to 28 U.S.C.
Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that
his allegations do not satisfy the imminent danger exception
to section 1915(g). Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d
1047, 1053-55 (9th Cir. 2007). Though difficult to read,
Plaintiff appears to allege a violation of due process
related to a disciplinary proceeding from June 2014, as well
as Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment violations
regarding confiscation of Plaintiff’s property from
February 2016. (ECF No. 1.) As such, Plaintiff has not
alleged any imminent danger of serious physical injury at the
time the complaint was filed and has not satisfied the
exception from the three strikes bar under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g). Plaintiff must pay the $400.00 filing fee if he
wishes to litigate this action.
the Court HEREBY ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to randomly
assign a District Judge to this action.
it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 2), be
DENIED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and
Plaintiff be ORDERED to pay the $400 initial filing fee in
full to proceed with this action.
Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United
States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the
provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within
fourteen (14) days after being served with
these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file
written objections with the court. The document should be
captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that
the failure to file objections within the specified time may
result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the
magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal.
Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir.
2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391,
1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
 The Court takes judicial notice of the
following United States District Court cases: (1)
Favor-El v. Rome, 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, No.
2:16-cv-02870-JGB-JEM (C.D. Cal.) (dismissed on May 2, 2016
as frivolous, malicious, and for failure to state a claim);
and (3) Favor-El v. United States of America, No.
2:15-cv-01448-GEB-AC (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed on October 22,
2015 as frivolous).
See, e.g., Favor v.
Monae, No. 1:19-cv-00081-LJO-SKO (E.D. Cal.). It is also
noteworthy that Plaintiff has been deemed a vexatious
litigant, has filed fifty (50) actions in this district
alone, and has filed numerous other actions in the other
district courts in this state. Plaintiff has also filed