Charles Walter Weber v. Richard Ricker, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 CHARLES WALTER WEBER, 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 3:25-cv-06036-BJR-BAT 10 v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 RICHARD RICKER, et al., 12 Defendant.

13 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for an order directing the Department of Correction 14 to cease collecting the filing fee in this matter. Dkt. 23. The Court recommends DENYING the 15 motion. 16 Plaintiff filed a § 1983 prisoner civil rights complaint on November 18, 2025, and on 17 November 21, 2025, was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 18 1915(a). Dkt. 5. Plaintiff’s complaint was served, and Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the 19 Washington State Department of Corrections because it is an entity that cannot be sued. 20 A report and recommendation was filed recommending dismissal of the Washington 21 State Department of Corrections and granting Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. Two 22 days later, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice to which Defendants 23 did not object. 1 The assigned District Judge dismissed the matter on January 6, 2026. On January 21, 2 2026, Plaintiff filed the instant motion in which he requests the Court order the Washington 3 Department of Corrections cease collection of the filing fee “because [Plaintiff] voluntarily 4 withdrew the lawsuit.” Dkt. 23.

5 Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because a litigant can proceed with a lawsuit 6 only if litigant pays the filing fee or is granted leave to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 7 1915(a). The Court cannot grant Plaintiff’s request to excuse or waive recoupment of the filing 8 fee because a prisoner who is granted leave to proceed IFP remains obligated to pay the entire 9 fee in “increments” or “installments.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Bruce v. Samuels, 577 10 U.S. 82, 84 (2016); Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015). This obligation 11 continues notwithstanding voluntary dismissal of the suit. 12 The Court accordingly RECOMMENDS: 13 1. Plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. 23) requesting the Department of Corrections cease 14 collection of the filing fee be DENIED.

15 OBJECTIONS AND APPEAL 16 This Report and Recommendation is not an appealable order. Therefore, a notice of 17 appeal seeking review in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit should not be filed until the 18 assigned District Judge enters a judgment in the case. 19 Objections, however, may be filed and served upon all parties no later than January 30, 20 2026. The Clerk should note the matter for January 30, 2026, as ready for the District Judge’s 21 consideration. If objections are filed, any response is due within 14 days after being served with 22 the objections. A party filing an objection must note the matter for the Court’s consideration 14 23 days from the date the objection is filed and served. The matter will then be ready for the 1 Court’s consideration on the date the response is due. The failure to timely object may affect the 2 right to appeal. 3 DATED this 22nd day of January, 2026. 4 A

5 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23