Favor VEXATIOUS LITIGANT v. Knight et al, No. 1:2021cv01617 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 3 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING Plaintiff's 2 Motion to Proceed IFP signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/7/2021. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANDON ALEXANDER FAVOR, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 1:21-cv-01617-DAD-SAB Plaintiff, v. MARION JUNE KNIGHT, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 2, 3) 17 18 Plaintiff Brandon Alexander Favor is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 19 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 20 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On November 9, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 22 recommendations, recommending that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be 23 denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and that plaintiff be required to pay the $402.00 filing fee 24 in full to proceed with this action. (Doc. No. 3.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found that 25 plaintiff has accrued three or more prior dismissals that count as strikes under 28 U.S.C. 26 § 1915(g) and that his current allegations do not satisfy the imminent danger exception to 27 § 1915(g). (Id. at 2–4.) Plaintiff has also reported significant income. (Id. at 2.) The findings 28 and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that objections thereto were 1 1 to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff timely filed objections to 2 the findings and recommendations on November 29, 2021. (Doc. No. 4.) Those objections do 3 not appear to address the magistrate judge’s reasoning or conclusions set forth in the pending 4 findings and recommendations. (See id.) 5 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 6 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 7 objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 8 proper analysis. 9 10 Accordingly, 1. 11 The findings and recommendations issued on November 9, 2021 (Doc. No. 3) are adopted in full; 12 2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is denied; 13 3. Within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall 14 15 pay the required filing fee of $402.00 in full to proceed with this action; and 4. Failure to pay the filing fee within the allotted time will result in dismissal of this 16 action. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: December 7, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
