Adeniji v. US Department of Commerce/US Census Bureau

S.D. New York

Adeniji v. US Department of Commerce/US Census Bureau

DecidedOctober 26, 2021

Docket1:19-cv-08796-CM

StatusUnknown

This text of Adeniji v. US Department of Commerce/US Census Bureau (Adeniji v. US Department of Commerce/US Census Bureau) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adeniji v. US Department of Commerce/US Census Bureau, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK OLUSEYI ADENIJI, Plaintiff, -against- 1:19-CV-8796 (CM) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ORDER CENSUS BUREAU NY REGIONAL OFFICE, Defendant. COLLEEN McMAHON, United States District Judge: By order and judgment dated February 21, 2020, the Court dismissed this pro se action, in which Plaintiff proceeded in forma pauperis, for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. On April 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. And on June 22, 2020, he paid $505 in fees to appeal.1 In an order dated December 14, 2020, however, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal, effective January 25, 2021, because of his failure to file certain documents in that court. Adeniji v. United States Dep’t of Commerce – Census Bureau – N.Y. Reg’l Office, No. 20-1320 (2d Cir. Dec. 14, 2020).

On October 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion in this court in which he appears to request a refund of the $505 in fees he paid to appeal the dismissal of this action. (ECF 14.) The Court denies that motion. See Bell v. Clark, 194 F.3d 781, 782 (7th Cir. 1999) (“There is no refund of a filing fee just because an appellant, petitioner, or other seeker of judicial review is dissatisfied with the outcome of his quest, whether that outcome is defeat on the merits or a refusal, for jurisdictional or other reasons, even to consider the merits.”); Lucien v. DeTella, 141 F.3d 773,

1 The Court notes that four days later, on June 26, 2020, Plaintiff paid another $505 in fees to appeal in Adeniji v. The Harman Firm, 1:19-CV-8032 (VSB), which is pending before Judge Vernon S. Broderick of this court. 775 (7th Cir. 1998) (“Filing fees are part of the costs of litigation.”); see also Celestin v. U.S. Dep’t of State Bureau of Consular Affairs, No. 20-CV-0947, 2020 WL 6901081, *2 (E.D.N-Y. Nov. 23, 2020) (“[T]he law does not permit a judge to refund a filing fee. Once the filing fee has been collected, it cannot be waived or refunded, regardless of the outcome of the action.”); Ball v. Goldfar, No. 9:19-CV-0908, 2020 WL 474448, *2 n.2 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2020) (“The law is well-settled that once payment of the filing fee has been collected, it cannot be waived or refunded, regardless of the outcome of the action.”); cf Goins v. Decaro, 241 F.3d 260, 262 (2d Cir. 2001) (“fee-paying litigants have no opportunity to obtain a refund of their filing fees in the event that they withdraw their appeals”). The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status 1s denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Plaintiff has consented to electronic service of court documents. (ECF 3.) SO ORDERED. Dated: October 26, 2021 New York, New York hie. Iu United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK OLUSEYI ADENIJI, Plaintiff, -against- 1:19-CV-8796 (CM) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ORDER CENSUS BUREAU NY REGIONAL OFFICE, Defendant. COLLEEN McMAHON, United States District Judge: By order and judgment dated February 21, 2020, the Court dismissed this pro se action, in which Plaintiff proceeded in forma pauperis, for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. On April 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. And on June 22, 2020, he paid $505 in fees to appeal.1 In an order dated December 14, 2020, however, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal, effective January 25, 2021, because of his failure to file certain documents in that court. Adeniji v. United States Dep’t of Commerce – Census Bureau – N.Y. Reg’l Office, No. 20-1320 (2d Cir. Dec. 14, 2020).

On October 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion in this court in which he appears to request a refund of the $505 in fees he paid to appeal the dismissal of this action. (ECF 14.) The Court denies that motion. See Bell v. Clark, 194 F.3d 781, 782 (7th Cir. 1999) (“There is no refund of a filing fee just because an appellant, petitioner, or other seeker of judicial review is dissatisfied with the outcome of his quest, whether that outcome is defeat on the merits or a refusal, for jurisdictional or other reasons, even to consider the merits.”); Lucien v. DeTella, 141 F.3d 773,

1 The Court notes that four days later, on June 26, 2020, Plaintiff paid another $505 in fees to appeal in Adeniji v. The Harman Firm, 1:19-CV-8032 (VSB), which is pending before Judge Vernon S. Broderick of this court. 775 (7th Cir. 1998) (“Filing fees are part of the costs of litigation.”); see also Celestin v. U.S. Dep’t of State Bureau of Consular Affairs, No. 20-CV-0947, 2020 WL 6901081, *2 (E.D.N-Y. Nov. 23, 2020) (“[T]he law does not permit a judge to refund a filing fee. Once the filing fee has been collected, it cannot be waived or refunded, regardless of the outcome of the action.”); Ball v. Goldfar, No. 9:19-CV-0908, 2020 WL 474448, *2 n.2 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2020) (“The law is well-settled that once payment of the filing fee has been collected, it cannot be waived or refunded, regardless of the outcome of the action.”); cf Goins v. Decaro, 241 F.3d 260, 262 (2d Cir. 2001) (“fee-paying litigants have no opportunity to obtain a refund of their filing fees in the event that they withdraw their appeals”). The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status 1s denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Plaintiff has consented to electronic service of court documents. (ECF 3.) SO ORDERED. Dated: October 26, 2021 New York, New York hie. Iu United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Adeniji v. US Department of Commerce/US Census Bureau, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adeniji-v-us-department-of-commerceus-census-bureau-nysd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack