1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GEORGE JARVIS AUSTIN, Case No. 21-cv-09347-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: APPLICATION TO 9 v. REFUND FILING FEE

10 KERRI RILEY, Re: Dkt. Nos. 28, 30 Defendant. 11

12 13 Plaintiff filed his complaint on December 2, 2021 along with an application to proceed in 14 forma pauperis. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 2.) In the application, Plaintiff responded to nearly all the required 15 questions with “not disclosed.” The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a completed application with 16 information sufficient to support a finding that he is unable to pay the required filing fee, or 17 otherwise to pay the fee. (Dkt. No. 4.) Plaintiff paid the filing fee on January 1, 2022. (Dkt. No. 18 9.) On March 11, 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file proof of service by April 11, 2022. 19 (Dkt. No. 24.) On March 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw his case, (Dkt. No. 26), 20 and the Court issued an order acknowledging Plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of 21 Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). (Dkt. No. 27.) 22 Plaintiff applied to the Clerk of Court for a refund of the $402 filing fee on the basis that 23 “[n]o action, or service, has been taken on case, and thus no fee required, and refund is 24 appropriate.” (Dkt. No. 25.) The Clerk denied the application and stated that a court order is 25 required for a refund. (Dkt. No. 29.) Plaintiff now requests a court order. (Dkt. Nos. 28, 30.) 26 The Court may not refund the filing fee. Filing fees are authorized by

27 and are part of the costs of litigating a case. “[F]ees are directed towards covering the costs of 1 GEB-CKD PS,

, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2012); see Porter v. Dep’t of 2 Treasury,

, 179-80 (3d Cir. 2009); Williams v. Roberts,

(5th 3 Cir. 1997) (per curiam). “[T]he filing fee is owed upon initiation of an action, and the obligation 4 || to pay the filing fee is not predicated upon the guarantee of some particular outcome within a 5 particular time frame.” Rodriguez v. Castillo, No. 1:21-cv-00409-A WI-SAB (PC),

|| 4306068, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2021). 7 Accordingly, Plaintiff's request is DENIED. See, e.g., Duclairon v. LGBTQ Cmty. & 8 || Grace Cmty. Church Klan, No. 3:18-cv-01095-AC,

(D. Or. Oct. 17, 2018) 9 (denying request for refund after plaintiff voluntarily dismissed case). 10 This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 28, 30. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: March 18, 2022

Prguts SoCo JXCQVELINE SCOTT CORL 15 United States Magistrate Judge 16

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28