Finch v. United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma

W.D. Washington

Finch v. United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma

DecidedDecember 7, 2020

Docket3:19-cv-06131

StatusUnknown

This text of Finch v. United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma (Finch v. United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Finch v. United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma, (W.D. Wash. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 EMANUEL LEONARD FINCH, SR, CASE NO. 19-6131 RJB-TLF 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION 12 v. 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF 14 WASHINGTON AT TACOMA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Refund of Filing 18 Fee. Dkt. 13. The Court has considered the pleadings filed regarding the motion and the 19 remaining file. 20 The Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, filed this civil rights case and application to proceed in 21 forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915 on November 25, 2019. Dkt. 1. His 22 application to proceed IFP was granted. Dkt. 7. The Plaintiff later moved to voluntarily dismiss 23 his case. Dkt. 10. The motion was granted, the case was dismissed and closed. Dkt. 12. The 24 1 Plaintiff now moves for a refund of his filing fee in this case. Dkt. 13. The Plaintiff also asserts 2 that he has overpaid $11.00 in Finch v. Graham, U.S. District Court for the Western District of 3 Washington case number 3:15-cv-5305 RBL (“Graham”). Id. 4 Refund of Filing Fee in this Case. “Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, prisoner litigants are

5 required to pay court filing fees, although financially qualified prisoners may pay the fees in 6 increments.” Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015). 7 The Plaintiff’s motion for a refund of his filing fee (Dkt. 13) should be denied. The 8 Plaintiff filed this case. His decision to later voluntarily dismiss it does not relieve him of the 9 obligation to pay the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)(“if a prisoner brings a civil action or 10 files an appeal in forma pauperis, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing 11 fee”). His motion should be denied. 12 Alleged Overpayment of $11.00 in Graham. A separate order will be entered in that 13 case. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED.

15 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 16 to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 17 Dated this 7th day of December, 2020. A 18

19 ROBERT J. BRYAN United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24

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

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 EMANUEL LEONARD FINCH, SR, CASE NO. 19-6131 RJB-TLF 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION 12 v. 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF 14 WASHINGTON AT TACOMA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Refund of Filing 18 Fee. Dkt. 13. The Court has considered the pleadings filed regarding the motion and the 19 remaining file. 20 The Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, filed this civil rights case and application to proceed in 21 forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915 on November 25, 2019. Dkt. 1. His 22 application to proceed IFP was granted. Dkt. 7. The Plaintiff later moved to voluntarily dismiss 23 his case. Dkt. 10. The motion was granted, the case was dismissed and closed. Dkt. 12. The 24 1 Plaintiff now moves for a refund of his filing fee in this case. Dkt. 13. The Plaintiff also asserts 2 that he has overpaid $11.00 in Finch v. Graham, U.S. District Court for the Western District of 3 Washington case number 3:15-cv-5305 RBL (“Graham”). Id. 4 Refund of Filing Fee in this Case. “Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, prisoner litigants are

5 required to pay court filing fees, although financially qualified prisoners may pay the fees in 6 increments.” Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015). 7 The Plaintiff’s motion for a refund of his filing fee (Dkt. 13) should be denied. The 8 Plaintiff filed this case. His decision to later voluntarily dismiss it does not relieve him of the 9 obligation to pay the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)(“if a prisoner brings a civil action or 10 files an appeal in forma pauperis, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing 11 fee”). His motion should be denied. 12 Alleged Overpayment of $11.00 in Graham. A separate order will be entered in that 13 case. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED.

15 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 16 to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 17 Dated this 7th day of December, 2020. A 18

19 ROBERT J. BRYAN United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Finch v. United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finch-v-united-states-district-court-western-district-of-washington-at-wawd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack