Foster v. Gamoian ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 RICKY TYRONE FOSTER, Case No. 1:22-cv-00799-DAD-EPG 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS 12 v. AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 13 LISA GAMOIAN, et al., PAY THE $402.00 FILING FEE 14 Defendants. (ECF No. 5) 15 16 17 Plaintiff Ricky Tyrone Foster is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 18 action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). On June 27, 2022, Plaintiff file an application 19 to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. (ECF No. 3). On July 7, 2022, this Court issued 20 findings and recommendations, recommending that Plaintiff’s application be denied and that he 21 be required to pay the $402 filing fee in full if he wants to proceed with the action because he had 22 at least three “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) prior to filing this action. (ECF No. 4). The 23 findings and recommendations gave Plaintiff fourteen days to file any objections, and Plaintiff 24 has filed no objections to date. 25 However, Plaintiff has filed a request for reconsideration of the findings and 26 recommendations and request for extension of time to pay the filing fee. (ECF No. 5). As grounds 27 for both requests, Plaintiff argues that COVID-19 quarantine procedures at his prison have made 28 it difficult for him to access legal resources and to communicate with his family regarding 1 | obtaining the filing fee for this case. 2 As to the request for reconsideration, the Court finds Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 | 59(e) most applicable, which permits a court to reconsider an order if “presented with newly 4 | discovered evidence, [if it is shown that the Court] committed clear error, or if there is an 5 | intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 6 | (9th Cir. 1999). Here, Plaintiff has shown none of the above reasons for the Court to reconsider 7 | its recommendation that he be required to pay the filing fee. 8 As to the request for an extension of time to pay the filing fee, the Court notes that its 9 | findings and recommendations remain pending for the District Judge’s consideration. 10 | Accordingly, there is no current deadline for Plaintiff to pay the filing fee; rather, the District 11 | Judge will set such a deadline if the findings and recommendations are adopted. 12 Based on the forgoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs request for reconsideration of the 13 | findings and recommendations and request for extension of time to pay the filing fee (ECF No. 5) 14 | are denied. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 | Dated: _ July 25, 2022 [Je hey 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28