Zayas v. Summit Classical Christian School

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 MYRIAM ZAYAS, CASE NO. C23-1368JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 12 SUMMIT CLASSICAL 13 CHRISTIAN SCHOOL, 14 Defendant. 15 Before the court is pro se Plaintiff Myriam Zayas’s motion for “a refund for the 16 1000 dollars [she] paid on this case” in “this court and the appeals court.” (Mot. (Dkt. 17 # 14) at 2.) Because Ms. Zayas proceeded in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in the district court, 18 however, she did not pay the $405 fee to file her civil complaint. (See IFP Order (Dkt. 19 # 4); Compl. (Dkt. # 5) (“Receipt # IFP Granted”); see generally Dkt. (no receipt of filing 20 fee).) The court therefore denies Ms. Zayas’s request for a refund of the district court’s 21 civil case filing fee. 22 1 Ms. Zayas’s IFP status was later revoked on appeal (see 1/3/24 Order (Dkt. # 13)), 2 and she paid the $605 fee to file her notice of appeal (see generally Dkt). Ms. Zayas now

3 seeks a refund of that fee because she “would like to sue the school district instead.” 4 (Mot. at 2.) But litigants are not entitled to a refund of filing fees based on a change of 5 heart. See Starkgraf v. Lyons, No. C23-5497TMC-GJL, 2024 WL 1722848, at *3 (W.D. 6 Wash. Apr. 5, 2024) (denying motion for refund following plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal, 7 noting that “[t]he decision to file and prosecute a case is made solely by the plaintiff”), 8 R&R adopted, 2024 WL 1722848 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 22, 2024); Green v. Bank of Am.,

9 No. 2:12-cv-02093-GEB-CKD PS, 2012 WL 5032414, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2012) 10 (holding “voluntary dismissal of an action does not entitle the litigant to a refund of filing 11 fees”); Thompson v. San Jose Police Dep’t, No. C 05-2195 JF (PVT) 2006 WL 1141324, 12 at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 1, 2006) (same); Lucien v. DeTella, 141 F.3d 773, 775 (7th Cir. 13 1998) (“Filing fees are part of the costs of litigation.”); Williams v. Roberts, 116 F.3d

14 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1997) (holding that filing fees are “assessed for the privilege of 15 initiating an appeal, without regard to the subsequent disposition of the matter”). 16 Accordingly, the court DENIES Ms. Zayas’s motion (Dkt. # 14). 17 Dated this 6th day of May, 2024. A 18 JAMES L. ROBART 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22