Opinion
3:23-cv-301-BJD-JBT
10-11-2023
STEVEN R. PHELPS, Plaintiff, v. KIMBRELL MAINTENANCE MAN/PLUMBER, Defendant.
ORDER
BRIAN J. DAVIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
In a one-page letter (Doc. 20), Plaintiff asks that the Court refund his filing fee in this case and another (Case No. 3:22-cv-991-MMH-JBT). Plaintiff has not filed a proper motion for this Court's consideration. Under this Court's Local Rules, a party seeking relief must do so through a proper motion, not a letter. M.D. Fla. R. 3.01(a), (j). “A motion must include . . . a concise statement of the precise relief requested, a statement of the basis for the request, and a legal memorandum supporting the request.” M.D. Fla. R. 3.01(a). See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(b) (“A request for a court order must be made by motion.”).
Regardless of the facial insufficiency of Plaintiff's filing, the Court is aware of no Rule that would entitle Plaintiff to a refund of the filing fee, which he paid in full, simply because his action was dismissed. On the contrary, under the United States Code, the clerk's collection of a civil filing fee is dependent on the filing of an action, not its disposition: “The clerk . . . shall require the parties instituting any civil action . . . to pay a filing fee.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (emphasis added). District courts generally deny requests for refunds of filing fees properly collected under § 1914(a). See, e.g., Dominic v. Goldman, No. 2:21-cv-394-SPC-NPM, 2021 WL 2376704, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 10, 2021) (“Fee-paying litigants are not entitled to refunds simply because a case is dismissed ....”); Montoya v. Cap. One, N.A., No. 2:21-cv-11978, 2022 WL 957548, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 29, 2022) (citing cases and explaining that the “Judicial Conference of the United States ‘has a longstanding policy prohibiting the refund of fees'”).
Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for a refund of the filing fee (Doc. 20) is DENIED.