United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MICHAEL J. REAGAN, District Judge.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), pro se Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this Bivens action in late January 2014. ( See Doc. 82). Citing two Supreme Court decisions, Plaintiff seeks the waiver and/or return of his filing fee.
Neither of the cases to which Plaintiff cites has any relevance to this case, in which the court is authorized by federal statute to collect filing fees from the incarcerated Plaintiff. See Johnson v. Daley , 339 F.3d 582, 591 (7th Cir. 2003); Lucien v. DeTella , 141 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 1998) (Prison Litigation Reform Act's fee-collection and prepayment system is constitutional). In Hale v. Henkel, the Court considered whether an officer of a corporation charged with a criminal violation could refuse to respond to a subpoena directed at the corporation. Hale , 201 U.S. 43 (1906). And the Crandall v. Nevada court invalidated a state law requiring individuals to pay a one-dollar tax to leave the state. Crandall , 73 U.S. 35 (1867).
Plaintiff's argument has no merit. As the Seventh Circuit has reasoned, "[l]itigation is not a free good, and its costs are not limited to those who initiate it. They are borne not only by the plaintiff but by the defendant, by the taxpayer, and by parties to other lawsuits in the same court." Lumbert v. Ill. Dep't of Corr. , 827 F.2d 257, 259 (7th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff brought suit in federal court, and Congress has seen fit to lay the financial cost of such a filing on him. 28 U.S.C. § ...