Hanke v. Trembly

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Dietmar Hanke, No. CV-24-03413-PHX-KML

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Jason Trembly, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff Dietmar Hanke filed a “Notice of Dismissal.” (Doc. 8.) Because no 16 defendant has filed an answer, Hanke is entitled to dismiss his case without a court order. 17 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). But Hanke’s notice also requests the court “provide a refund 18 [of the filing fee] to [his] credit card or by check to the address below.” (Doc. 8 at 3.) The 19 statute requiring the collection of a filing fee does not contain any provision allowing for 20 the refund of that fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914. And many other district courts have concluded 21 “[a] district court lacks the authority to refund a filing fee after a voluntary dismissal.” 22 Hinman v. Gianforte, No. CV-24-33-BU-BMM-JTJ, 2024 WL 3567394, at *1 (D. Mont. 23 July 29, 2024) (quoting Duclairon v. LGBTQ Cmty. & Grace Cmty. Church Klan, No. 24 3:18-CV-01095-AC, 2018 WL 5085754, at *1 (D. Or. Oct. 17, 2018)). Because Hanke did 25 not identify any authority to the contrary, his request for a refund is denied. 26 / 27 / 28 / 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk || of Court shall close this case. The request for a refund of the filing fee is DENIED. 4 Dated this 20th day of December, 2024. 5

5 A Ad OG IV. hte ( Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-