Drew v. Hernandez et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
ADAM DREW,
Plaintiff,
v.
ARLANDO HERNANDEZ and
A. STRAWTHER,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:22-cv-00194-RRB
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On August 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed a handwritten Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
and requested reimbursement of the filing fee.1 On August 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed
a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on the Court’s form (PS09) with a handwritten
request for reimbursement of the filing fee.2 	Plaintiff initially filed applications to
waive prepayment of the filing fee,3 then paid the full filing fee.4
A filing fee is “assessed for the privilege of initiating the matter, without
regard to the subsequent disposition.”5 Plaintiff filed this action, which triggered
the obligation to pay a filing fee. 	As the Court has previously informed Plaintiff,
1 Docket 13.
2 Docket 15.
3 Dockets 2–3.
4 Docket 1 (Filing fee: $402, receipt number 100019605).
5 Kidwell v. Cisnero, No. 122CV00290JLTSABPC, 2023 WL 3095291, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2023) (citing
Williams v. Roberts, 116 F.3d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1997), as revised (July 23, 1997)).
Case 3:22-cv-00194-RRB Document 16 Filed 08/16/23 Page 1 of 2

Case No. 3:22-cv-00194-RRB, Drew v. Hernandez, et al
Order of Dismissal
Page 2 of 2
federal law requires that a prisoner may only waive prepayment of the fees
associated with civil lawsuits.6 Even a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis would
still be obligated to pay the filing fee incrementally until paid in full regardless of
the outcome.7
A plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without leave of court at any time
before the defendant answers or files a dispositive motion.8 	However, voluntary
dismissal does not entitle a litigant to a refund of the filing fee.9
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. This action is DISMISSED.
2. Plaintiff's request for reimbursement of his filing fee is DENIED.
DATED this 16th day of August, 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Ralph R. Beistline
RALPH R. BEISTLINE
Senior United States District Judge
6 Docket 11 at 11.
7 See, e.g., Antonetti v. Foster, No. 3:14-cv-495-JAD-VPC, 2015 WL 6437399, at *3 (D. Nev.
Oct. 22, 2015) (“Plaintiff will . . . be required to make monthly payments toward the full filing fee
when he has funds available, even though this case is being dismissed.”).
8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i).
9 See Green v. Bank of America, No. 2:12-cv-02093-GED-CKD PS, 2012 WL 5032414, at *1 (E.D.
Cal. Oct. 17, 2012) (denying refund of filing fee after pro se plaintiff voluntarily dismissed complaint
under Rule 41 (a)); Grindling v. Martone, Civ. No. 12-00361-LEK/BMK, 2012 WL 4502954, at * 1–
2 (D. Haw. Sept. 28, 2012) (refusing to refund filing fee where pro se prisoner voluntarily dismissed
case); Killian v. Panetta, Case No. 12cv828 JLS (DHB), 2013 WL 41138399, at *3 (S.D. Cal.
Aug. 13, 2013) (refusing to refund appellate filing fee to pro se plaintiff where Ninth Circuit
dismissed appeal before briefing filed).
Case 3:22-cv-00194-RRB Document 16 Filed 08/16/23 Page 2 of 2