Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01094/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01094-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY LEWIS,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

M.D. BITTER, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:19-cv-01094-NONE-GSA-PC

 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RELIEF FROM FILING FEE

(ECF No. 14.)

I. BACKGROUND

Terry Lewis (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing 

this action on August 12, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) On November 4, 2019, this case was dismissed as 

duplicative of an earlier-filed case. (ECF No. 13.) 

On March 6, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from the filing fee in this case. (ECF 

No. 15.) No opposition has been filed.

II. MOTION FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF FILING FEES

“Filing fees are part of the costs of litigation,” and prisoner cases are no exception. 

Slaughter v. Carey, No. CIVS030851MCEDADP, 2007 WL 1865501, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2007)

(quoting Lucien v. DeTella, 141 F.3d 773, 775 (7th Cir. 1998)). Filing feesfor initiating a lawsuit 

in district court are authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1914. Duclairon v. LGBTQ Cmty. & Grace Cmty. 

Case 1:19-cv-01094-LJO-GSA Document 16 Filed 06/15/20 Page 1 of 3
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

Church Klan, No. 3:18-CV-01095-AC, 2018 WL 5085754, at *1 (D.Or. Oct. 17, 2018) citing 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)). The Prison Litigation Reform Act has no provision for return of 

fees that are partially paid or for cancellation of the remaining fee. Slaughter, 2007 WL 1865501, 

at 1 (citing see Goins v. Decaro, 241 F.3d 260, 261-62 (2d Cir. 2001) (inmates who proceeded 

pro se and in forma pauperis were not entitled to refund of appellate fees or to cancellation of 

indebtedness for unpaid appellate fees after they withdrew their appeals)). In fact, “[a] 

congressional objective in enacting the PLRA was to ‘mak[e] all prisoners seeking to bring 

lawsuits or appeals feel the deterrent effect created by liability for filing fees.’” Goins, 241 F.3d 

at 261. Nothing in the statute, or any other statute, provides for the refund of a filing fee for any 

reason. Plaintiff does not identify, nor does the court find, any precedent permitting the court to 

refund filing fees under these circumstances.

III. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

Plaintiff requests a court order excusing him from paying the filing fee for this case 

arguing that he is paying the filing fee twice for the same case.

Plaintiff’s motion follows in its entirety:

See Judge. I only get 50 dollars my mom sends me out of her SSI check. 

I let two kids put their funds on my account, kids killing themselves with overload 

restitution in excess of $30 thousand. I didn’t know the courts would charge me

twice GSA. I paid it off. (Skipped canteen). Paid fee out of my food and gave 

these kids their canteen in honor. Can you call Lancaster and restore my funds so 

I can eat. I’m skin and bones skinny. Thanks. 

(ECF No. 15.)

Plaintiff submits exhibits showing his previous requests to the court and to Lancaster 

State Prison, where he is currently incarcerated, to be reimbursed for money he contends was 

overpaid by deductions from his prison trust account. He claims that the court ordered the prison 

not to deduct filing fee payments for both of his cases, but the prison refuses to reimburse him.

Case 1:19-cv-01094-LJO-GSA Document 16 Filed 06/15/20 Page 2 of 3
3

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

IV. DISCUSSION

The court finds no good cause to excuse Plaintiff from paying the filing fee for both cases. 

First, the court finds no order in either of his cases doing any of the following: 1- excusing his 

payment of two filing fees, 2- directing the prison to stop payment to the court, or 3- directing 

the prison to reimburse Plaintiff. Second, Plaintiff has not sufficiently explained why he is not 

getting enough to eat, assuming that he is being served regular meals in prison. Third, it is 

apparent from the court’s record that Plaintiff did not accidently file a duplicative case and was 

not aware that he would owe another filing fee. On May 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed the first case at

the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Thereafter, on June 16, 2019, the 

case was transferred to this court and assigned case number 19-cv-0840-BAM-PC (Lewis v. 

Bitter). Then, on August 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed the second case at this court using a new 

complaint, which was assigned case number 19-cv-1094-GSA-PC (Lewis v. Bitter). In both 

cases Plaintiff submitted applications to proceed in forma pauperis and signed authorizations for 

the prison to collect the filing fee from his trust account and forward it to the court. (Case 19-

0840, ECF No. 3 at page 4; Case 19-1094, ECF No. 7 at page 2.) On these facts the court finds 

no good cause to grant Plaintiff’s motion for relief from the filing fee.

V. CONCLUSION

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for relief from the filing fee, filed on March 6, 2020, is 

DENIED; and

2. The court shall not reconsider this order, or consider any further motions in this 

case concerning Plaintiff’s payment of the filing fee.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 12, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01094-LJO-GSA Document 16 Filed 06/15/20 Page 3 of 3