Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01772/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01772-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Nazareno
Defendant
Theresa Mary Ramirez
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THERESA MARY RAMIREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. NAZARENO,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01772-DAD-EPG

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

REQUEST REFUND OF FILING FEE

(ECF No. 10)

On December 28, 2016, Plaintiff Theresa Mary Ramirez filed a notice of dismissal 

dismissing her case without prejudice. (ECF No. 8.) That notice dismissed the case and the Court 

ordered that the case be closed thereafter. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff has now filed a request for a 

refund of her filing fee and asked the Court to send her a form complaint for a state medical 

malpractice suit. (ECF No. 10.) “[V]oluntary dismissal of an action, whether filed by a prisoner or 

not, does not entitle the litigant to a refund of filing fees.” Grindling v. Martone, Case No. 12-

00361 LEK/BMK, 2012 WL 4502954, at *2 (D. Haw. Sept. 28, 2012) (collecting cases from the 

Second, Third, Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits and determining that 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “does 

not provide any authority or mechanism for the court . . . to return the filing fee after dismissal of 

an action”). Plaintiff’s motion is thus DENIED.

///

///

Case 1:16-cv-01772-DAD-EPG Document 11 Filed 01/12/17 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

Plaintiff is further advised that the Court does not possess forms for California state court 

litigation. If she wishes to pursue further action in state court, Plaintiff should consult her 

institutional law library for guidance.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2017 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01772-DAD-EPG Document 11 Filed 01/12/17 Page 2 of 2