Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00680/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00680-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Lee Es Burgeles,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Janet Napolitano, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-0680-PHX-LOA

ORDER

The matter arises on Plaintiff’s Motion for Refund of Civil Filing Fee. 

(docket #11) This pro se Plaintiff commenced this action on April 8, 2008 and paid the

$350.00 filing fee. After Plaintiff’s repeated failures to comply with Court orders and in

view of the lack of federal jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s case, on May 22, 2008, the Court

dismissed this matter without prejudice and entered Judgment. (dockets ## 9, 10) Before

dismissing Plaintiff’s case, the Court gave Plaintiff several opportunities to show cause

why his case should not be dismissed and warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with the

Court’s orders could result in dismissal of his case. (docket # 4, 6, 7) Despite the Court’s

warnings, Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s orders. 

Plaintiff now seeks a refund of the filing fee. Plaintiff’s motion merely

states “the United States District Court did not proceed after Lee Burgeles filed with

payment that Lee Burgeles request to the court for refund of the civil filing fee $350.00 . .

. .” Plaintiff has not provided, or has this Court’s independent research discovered, any

legal authority in support of his request. Moreover, contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, the

Case 2:08-cv-00680-LOA Document 12 Filed 08/13/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Court did “proceed” after Plaintiff paid the filing fee. Assuming arguendo this Court has

the inherent authority to order a filing fee refund, good cause does not exist to do so and,

therefore, this Court would not exercise its authority to order a refund. The Court will

deny Plaintiff’s motion. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Refund of Filing

Fee, docket # 11, is DENIED. 

DATED this 13th day of August, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00680-LOA Document 12 Filed 08/13/08 Page 2 of 2