IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

BRANDON FAVOR, CIVIL NO. 23-00622 LEK-RT #G60488, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION Plaintiff,

vs.

PAUL ROGER HEYMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Pro se Plaintiff Brandon Favor (“Favor”) commenced this action upon signing his Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint on December 18, 2023. ECF No. 1 at 9. On February 12, 2024, the Court received Favor’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by a Prisoner (“IFP Application”). ECF No. 5. On February 13, 2024, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause. ECF No. 6. In that Order, the Court explained that Favor had accrued three “strikes” under

(g).

at PageID.25–PageID.26 (citing Order Re Request to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees, Favor v. Fair, No. 2:15-cv-05834- JGB-JEM (C.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2015), ECF No. 4; Order Re Request to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees, Favor v. Los Angeles Superior Court, No. 2:15-cv-05842-JGB-JEM (C.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2015), ECF No. 4; Order Re Request to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees, Favor v. Slavemasters, No. 2:15-

cv-05840-JGB-JEM (C.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2015), ECF No. 4; Order Re Request to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees, Favor v. Slaveowners, No. 2:15-cv- 05839-JGB-JEM (C.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2015), ECF No. 4). The Court also

explained that Favor had not alleged facts showing that he was in imminent danger of physical injury when he filed the instant action. ECF No. 6 at PageID.26– PageID.27. The Court therefore instructed Favor to show good cause in writing on or before March 12, 2024, why he should be allowed to proceed without

prepayment of the full $405.00 filing and administrative fee.

at PageID.27– PageID.28. On March 12, 2024, the Court received from Favor a Declaration in Support

of Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, ECF No. 7, and on March 14, 2024, the Court received a Response With Administrative Order to Receive Bond Issuance, ECF No. 8. It is clear to the Court that Favor intended these documents to serve as his response to the February 13, 2024 Order. In the documents, however, Favor

does not dispute the strikes previously identified by the Court. Nor does he allege any facts showing that he faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed this lawsuit or that such a danger was related to his claims in this

action. See Ray v. Lara,

(9th Cir. 2022) (“[I]n order to qualify for the § 1915(g) imminent danger exception, a three-strikes prisoner must allege imminent danger of serious physical injury that is both fairly traceable to unlawful conduct alleged in his complaint and redressable by the court.”). As the Court explained in its February 13, 2024 Order, Favor may not proceed without concurrent payment of the $405 fee in this action unless he plausibly alleges that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed suit. ECF No. 6. Favor has not met this standard. CONCLUSION (1) This action is DISMISSED without prejudice to Favor raising his claims in a new action with concurrent payment of the civil filing fee. (2) The Clerk is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT and close the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, March 18, 2024. vs Leslie E. Kobayashi 4 Leslie E. Kobayashi ye United States District Judge

Civil No. 23-00622 LEK-RT, Favor v. Heyman, et al., ORDER DISMISSING ACTION