Ramirez v. Nazareno

Filing 13

ORDER denying 12 Second Motion to request refund of filing fee signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 4/6/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

THERESA MARY RAMIREZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13

ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION TO
REQUEST REFUND OF FILING FEE

v.

14

Case No. 1:16-cv-01772-DAD-EPG

J. NAZARENO,

15

(ECF No. 12)
Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff Theresa Mary Ramirez filed a complaint and motion to proceed in forma

18

pauperis on November 22, 2016. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) The Court granted the motion to proceed in

19

forma pauperis, but explained that under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), Plaintiff was still obligated to

20

pay the filing fee out of her prisoner trust account. Thus, although Plaintiff was permitted to

21

proceed in her case without paying the filing fee at the beginning of the case, the California

22

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation was directed to collect regular payments from her

23

trust account to pay the filing fee. Because the Court granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status,

24

the Court proceeded to screen the complaint. (ECF No. 7.)

25

On December 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice of dismissal dismissing her case without

26

prejudice. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff then filed a request for a refund of her filing fee on January 11,

27

2017. (ECF No. 10.) That request was denied. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff has now filed a second

28

request for a refund of her filing fee. (ECF No. 12.) As explained in its order denying Plaintiff’s
1

1

first request, “voluntary dismissal of an action, whether filed by a prisoner or not, does not entitle

2

the litigant to a refund of filing fees.” Grindling v. Martone, Case No. 12-00361 LEK/BMK, 2012

3

WL 4502954, at *2 (D. Haw. Sept. 28, 2012) (collecting cases from the Second, Third, Fifth,

4

Seventh, and Ninth Circuits and determining that 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “does not provide any

5

authority or mechanism for the court . . . to return the filing fee after dismissal of an action”).

6

Even if Plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis status, she is still required to pay the filing fee—

7

in forma pauperis status simply allows Plaintiff to pay the filing fee over time via her trust

8

account, rather than with a payment at the time of filing. Dismissal of Plaintiff’s case does not

9

change this fact. Plaintiff’s motion is thus DENIED.

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 6, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2