Lewis v. Benny et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CHAUNCEY T. LEWIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
BENNY, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-08390-JST
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Re: ECF No. 5
Plaintiff, an inmate currently housed at Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in Corcoran,
California, has filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was
filed on or about October 20, 2025. ECF No. 1. On January 5, 2026, the Court dismissed the
complaint for failure to state a claim, and granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.
ECF No. 4. On February 2, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss this case without prejudice,
stating that his poor health prevented him from prosecuting this case and that he believed he
needed the assistance of counsel to properly prosecute this case. ECF No. 5. Pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(a), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal
prior to the opposing party serving an answer. No answer has been filed in this case, and he Court
is unaware of Plaintiff having previously dismissed any federal or state court action based on or
including the claims raised herein. The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to voluntarily
dismiss this case without prejudice. ECF No. 5.
The Court DISMISSES this case without prejudice.1 Judgment is entered in favor of
1 Plaintiff is advised that he must still pay the full filing fee despite the voluntary dismissal of this
action. Porter v. Dep’t of Treasury, 564 F.3d 176, 179 (3d Cir. 2009) (3d Cir. 2009) (litigant’s
voluntary dismissal of appeal did not entitle him to refund of fees for docketing and filing appeal);
see also Green v. Bank of Am., No. 2:12-CV-02093-GEB, 2012 WL 5032414, at *1 (E.D. Cal.
Case 4:25-cv-08390-JST Document 8 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Defendants and against Plaintiff. The Clerk shall close the case.
This order terminates ECF No. 5.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 20, 2026
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
Oct. 17, 2012) (collecting cases holding that voluntary dismissal of action does not entitle litigant
to refund of filing fees; although cases cited concerned dismissals of appeals, reasoning in these
cases apply equally to district court filings). Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, once a
prisoner is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the prisoner is obligated to pay the filing
fees in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); Porter, 564 F.3d at 180. “The filing fee is assessed for the
privilege of initiating the matter, without regard to the subsequent disposition.” Bustillos v.
Hernandez, No. 123CV01365SABPC, 2023 WL 7626936, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2023).
Funds for the filing fee will continue to be deduced from income to Plaintiff’s account in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(B)(1) until his filing fee obligation is satisfied.
Case 4:25-cv-08390-JST Document 8 Filed 02/20/26 Page 2 of 2