1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANDON FAVOR, Case No.: 1:24-cv-0610 JLT SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND DIRECTING 14 S. VILLEGAS, et al., PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE FILING FEE WITHIN 30 DAYS 15 Defendants. (Doc. 7) 16

17 Brandon Favor seeks to proceed in forma pauperis in this action, in which he asserts the 18 defendants are liable for violations of his civil rights. (Docs. 1, 2.) The magistrate judge found 19 Plaintiff reported significant income and assets—including $500,000 in cash—and did not satisfy 20 the requirements of

(a)(1). (Doc. 7 at 1-2.) In addition, the magistrate judge 21 found Plaintiff “not entitled to proceed without prepayment of fees because he has accrued three 22 or more ‘strikes’ under section

.” (Id. at 1.) Specifically, the magistrate judge 23 found the following cases qualify as a strike under

(g):

24 1. Favor-El v. Rome, Case No. 1:15-cv-01865-LJO-EPG (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed for failure to state a claim on November 22, 2016); 25 2. Favor v. State of California, Case No. 2:16-cv-02870-JGB-JEM (C.D. 26 Cal.) (dismissed as frivolous, malicious, and for failure to state a claim on May 2, 2016); 27 3. Favor-El v. United States of America, Case No. 2:15-cv-01448-GEB- 1 4, Favor-El vy, Rihanna, Case No. 2:15-cv-09502-JGB-JEM (C.D. Cal.) (dismissed as frivolous, malicious, and for failure to state a claim on 2 December 16, 2015). 3 | Cd. Finally, the magistrate judge determined Plaintiff does “not qualify for the imminent 4 | danger exception.” (/d. at 1;

.) Thus, the magistrate judge recommended Plaintiff's 5 | application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. (/d. at 4.) 6 Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 10.) 7 | However, Plaintiff does not respond to the determination that he reported significant income and 8 | assets. Ud. at 1-6.) In addition, Plaintiff does not dispute the findings that the four identified 9 | cases which qualify as strikes under Section 1915. Finally, Plaintiff does not identify facts 10 | showing he is in “imminent danger of physical injury that is both fairly traceable to unlawful 11 | conduct alleged in his complaint and redressable by the court,” as required to proceed under the 12 | exception to Section 1915. See Ray v. Lara,

(9th Cir. 2022). 13 According to

(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 14 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, including Plaintiffs objections, the Court concludes the 15 | Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, 16 | the Court ORDERS: 17 1. The Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 7) are ADOPTED in full. 18 2. Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED. 19 3. Within 30 days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL pay in full 20 the $405.00 filing fee if he wishes to proceed with this action. 21 | Plaintiff is advised that failure to pay the required filing fee as ordered will result in the 22 | dismissal of this action without prejudice. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. os | Dated: _ July 2, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28