Warren v. Schick

Filing 14

ORDER denying 10 Motion to Refund Filing FeeRefund Filing Fee; denying 11 Motion to Refund Filing FeeRefund Filing Fee. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 7/21/14. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(mga)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION 1:13-cv-274-FDW CLIFFORD NATHANIEL WARREN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ) ) ) JIM SCHICK, Superintendent, ) Haywood Detention Center, ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________ ) ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on the pro se Plaintiff’s two Motions to Refund Filing Fee. (Doc. No. 10; 11). The Court dismissed without prejudice Plaintiff’s underlying action on April 11, 2014. Plaintiff now seeks a refund of the amount of money deducted from his prison trust account statement to pay his filing fee. The Court notes that Plaintiff was incarcerated at Mountain View Correctional Institution when he filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, but he has since been released from custody. See (Doc. No 13). Plaintiff’s motions are denied because, during the period of his incarceration, Plaintiff was still required to pay the full filing fee even though this action has been dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) (stating that “if a prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma pauperis, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee”). 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s Motions to Refund Filing Fee, (Doc. Nos. 10; 12), are DENIED. Signed: July 21, 2014 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?