Diaz v. Grady

Background

Miguel Diaz, who was incarcerated and proceeding without a lawyer, filed this action against William Grady and the Dutchess County District Attorney Office. The court had granted Diaz permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. After Diaz failed to file a second amended complaint, the court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim.

Diaz later requested a refund of the $350 filing fee. He argued that he believed 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) barred him from filing federal civil actions without prepaying fees because of prior prisoner cases that he said had been dismissed for failure to state a claim. He also suggested that this action might count as another qualifying dismissal. The court noted that a dismissal occurring after an action is filed cannot count as a qualifying dismissal under § 1915(g) for that action.

Court’s reasoning

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a prisoner who proceeds without prepaying the filing fee to pay the full fee. Permission to proceed without prepaying the entire amount only allows payment through deductions from the prisoner’s account in installments. It does not cancel the fee obligation.

The court relied on authority holding that a prisoner is not entitled to a filing-fee refund after a case has been dismissed or withdrawn. Diaz had also signed a prisoner authorization agreeing to pay the full filing fee for this action regardless of its outcome. The court stated that whether Diaz was barred by § 1915(g) when he filed was irrelevant to his refund request.

Ruling

Judge Cathy Seibel denied Diaz’s request for a refund of the filing fee. The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail Diaz a copy of the order and note service on the docket. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for that appeal.