Emerson Robert Gaitan v. Macomber et al

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EMERSON ROBERT GAITAN, Case No. 1:25-cv-00915-JLT-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER RECALLING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. (Doc. No. 6) MACOMBER et al, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 15 Defendant. CONSTRUED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Doc. No. 7) ORDER TO SUBMIT APPLICATION 18 TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS OR PAY FILING FEE WITHIN 21 DAYS 21 Plaintiff Emerson Robert Gaitan, is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 25, 2025. (Doc. No. 1, “Complaint”). Plaintiff did not pay the $405 filing fee and instead filed an application to proceed in this action in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 4). On September 19, 2025, this Court issued Findings and Recommendation (F&R) to the district judge to deny Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis because Plaintiff’s income level exceeded the federal poverty threshold under § 1915(a)(1) and Plaintiff’s application reflected that he had adequate funds remaining each month after he paid all monthly expenses. (Doc. No. 6). On October 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed Objections to the F&R. (Doc. No. 7, “Objections”). Therein, Plaintiff states he failed to include his rental payment of $850 a month in his application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Id.).

3 The Court construes Plaintiff's Objections as seeking reconsideration of his application to proceed in forma pauperis.1 A district court has inherent power to reconsider, rescind, or modify an order for sufficient cause. United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (authorizing a district court to revise an interlocutory order); E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(j) (authorizing motions for reconsideration of “any motion [that] has been granted or denied in whole or in part”). Generally, reconsideration is appropriate only when controlling law has changed, new evidence has become available, or when necessary to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Oregon v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 11 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

12 Because Plaintiff’s failure to include his monthly rent in his application will likely affect his indigency status, the Court grants Plaintiff’s construed motion for reconsideration.

14 Consequently, the Court will recall its F&R recommending Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. However, before reconsidering Plaintiff’s indigency status, the Court will direct Plaintiff to complete and file an amended Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) – AO 239, signed under penalty of perjury that reflects all expenses that Plaintiff wishes the Court to consider, including his monthly rental payment. If Plaintiff is unwilling to complete and submit an amended application, Plaintiff must pay the filing fee in full.

21 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 22 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed on September 19, 2025 (Doc. No. 6) are 23 RECALLED.

24 2. Plaintiff’s construed motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 7) is GRANTED.

25 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to forward a new Application to Proceed in District 26 Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) – AO 239 to Plaintiff.

1 The Supreme Court has instructed federal courts to liberally construe the “inartful pleading[s]” of pro se litigants. See Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365, 102 S. Ct. 700, 70 L. Ed. 2d 551 (1982).

1 4. Within twenty-one (21) days of the date on this order, Plaintiff shall either (1) pay the 2 $405.00 filing fee for this action, or (2) complete and file an Amended Application to 3 Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) — AO 239, 4 5. If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order, this action shall be dismissed for 5 failure to comply with a court order as a sanction under Local Rule 110.

Dated: _ October 15,2025 Mihaw. □□ fareh Zacks 8 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE