Austin v. Riley
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:21-cv-09347
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Austin v. Riley, Judge Corley denied Austin’s request to refund his filing fee after he voluntarily dismissed the case.
George Jarvis Austin, whose request for a refund of the $402 filing fee was denied.
What happened
In Austin v. Riley, George Jarvis Austin asked the court to refund the $402 filing fee he had paid after starting the case and then voluntarily dismissing it.
Austin argued that no action or service had occurred, so no fee should have been required. The Clerk of Court denied the refund request and said a court order was necessary.
The court denied Austin’s request, explaining that the filing fee is owed when a case begins and is not dependent on how the case proceeds. Judge Jacquelyn Corley issued the order.
The detailed version
- Austin v. Riley · No. 3:21-cv-09347
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Mar. 18, 2022
Background
George Jarvis Austin filed his complaint on December 2, 2021, together with an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. Because the application did not provide enough financial information, the court ordered him either to submit a completed application showing that he could not pay or to pay the fee. Austin paid the $402 filing fee on January 1, 2022.
The court later ordered Austin to file proof that the defendant had been served. Before that deadline, Austin moved to withdraw his case, and the court acknowledged his voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1).
Refund request
Austin applied to the Clerk of Court for a refund, arguing that no action or service had occurred and that no filing fee was therefore required. The Clerk denied the application and stated that a court order was needed. Austin then asked the court to order the refund.
Ruling
The court denied the request. It explained that filing fees are authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1914 and are part of the costs of litigating a case. The fee is owed when an action is initiated and does not depend on receiving a particular result or on how quickly the case proceeds. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 28 and 30.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.