U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART V— PROCEDURE › Chapter CHAPTER 123— FEES AND COSTS

28 U.S.C. § 1914

District court; filing and miscellaneous fees; rules of court

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The clerk of each district court shall require the parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in such court, whether by original process, removal or otherwise, to pay a filing fee of $350, except that on application for a writ of habeas corpus the filing fee shall be $5.(b) The clerk shall collect from the parties such additional fees only as are prescribed by the Judicial Conference of the United States.(c) Each district court by rule or standing order may require advance payment of fees.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 954; Pub. L. 95–598, title II, § 244, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2671; Pub. L. 99–336, § 4(a), June 19, 1986, 100 Stat. 637; Pub. L. 99–500, § 101(b) [title IV, § 407(a)], Oct. 18, 1986, 100 Stat. 1783–39, 1783–64, and Pub. L. 99–591, § 101(b) [title IV, § 407(a)], Oct. 30, 1986, 100 Stat. 3341–39, 3341–64; Pub. L. 104–317, title IV, § 401(a), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3853; Pub. L. 108–447, div. B, title III, § 307(a), Dec. 8, 2004, 118 Stat. 2895; Pub. L. 109–171, title X, § 10001(a), Feb. 8, 2006, 120 Stat. 183.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 549, 553 and 555 (R.S. § 828; June 28, 1902, ch. 1301, § 1, 32 Stat. 476; Feb. 11, 1925, ch. 204, §§ 2, 6, 8, 43 Stat. 857, 858; Jan. 22, 1927, ch. 50, § 2, 44 Stat. 1023; Jan. 31, 1928, ch. 14, § 1, 45 Stat. 54; Mar. 3, 1942, ch. 124, § 2, 56 Stat. 122; Sept. 27, 1944, ch. 414, §§ 1, 4, 5, 58 Stat. 743, 744).

Section consolidates sections 549, 553, and 555 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., as amended with necessary changes of phraseology.

The phrase “filing fee” was substituted for the inconsistent and misleading words of sections 549 and 553 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., “as full payment for all services to be rendered by the clerk” etc. thus removing the necessity for including exceptions and referring to other sections containing provisions for additional fees.

The provision in section 549 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., for payment of fees by the parties instituting criminal proceedings by indictment or information, was omitted. Such proceedings are instituted only by the United States from which costs cannot be exacted.

The provision in section 549 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., for taxation of fees as costs, was omitted as covered by section 1920 of this title.

Words “or appeal from a deportation order of a United States Commissioner” in section 553 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., were omitted as obsolete since repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act by act Dec. 17, 1943, ch. 344, § 1, 57 Stat. 600. Appeal was formerly conferred by section 282 of title 8, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Aliens and Nationality.

Subsection (d) excepting the District of Columbia, was added to preserve the existing schedule of fees prescribed by section 11–1509 of the District of Columbia Code, 1940 ed.

Editorial NotesCodification

Pub. L. 99–591 is a corrected version of Pub. L. 99–500.

Amendments

2006—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 109–171 substituted “$350” for “$250”.

2004—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 108–447 substituted “$250” for “$150”.

1996—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–317 substituted “$150” for “$120”.

1986—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 99–500 and Pub. L. 99–591 substituted “$120” for “$60”.

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 99–336 struck out subsec. (d) which provided that section was not applicable to District of Columbia.

1978—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 95–598 substituted “$60” for “$15”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2006 Amendment

Pub. L. 109–171, title X, § 10001(d), Feb. 8, 2006, 120 Stat. 184, provided that: “This section [amending this section and enacting provisions set out as notes under sections 1913 and 1931 of this title] and the amendment made by this section shall take effect 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Feb. 8, 2006].”

Effective Date of 2004 Amendment

Pub. L. 108–447, div. B, title III, § 307(c), Dec. 8, 2004, 118 Stat. 2895, provided that: “This section [amending this section and section 1931 of this title] shall take effect 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 8, 2004].”

Effective Date of 1996 Amendment

Pub. L. 104–317, title IV, § 401(c), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3854, provided that: “This section [amending this section and section 1931 of this title] shall take effect 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 19, 1996].”

Effective Date of 1986 Amendment

Pub. L. 99–336, § 4(c), June 19, 1986, 100 Stat. 638, provided that: “The amendments made by this section [amending this section] shall apply with respect to any civil action, suit, or proceeding instituted on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [June 19, 1986].”

Effective Date of 1978 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 95–598 effective Oct. 1, 1979, see section 402(c) of Pub. L. 95–598, set out as an Effective Date note preceding section 101 of Title 11, Bankruptcy.

Court Fees for Electronic Access to Information

Judicial Conference to prescribe reasonable fees for collection by courts under this section for access to information available through automatic data processing equipment and fees to be deposited in Judiciary Automation Fund, see section 303 of Pub. L. 102–140, set out as a note under section 1913 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8,921 cases (7,050 in the last 5 years), 1950–2026 · leading case: Roy A. Somlyo v. J. Lu-Rob Enterprises, Inc. And Louis G. Bond
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Roy A. Somlyo v. J. Lu-Rob Enterprises, Inc. And Louis G. Bond (1991) ca2 · cites it 6× “In an era of escalating case filings and ever-expanding case life spans, the clerk of the court performs a difficult and often superhuman task.”
United States Department of Justice v. Tax Analysts (1989) scotus · cites it 4× “The Department's next argument rests on the fact that the disclosure of district court decisions is partially governed by other statutes, in particular 28 U. S. C. § 1914 , and by rules *154 set by the Judicial Conference of the United States.”
Burnett v. Perry Manufacturing, Inc. (1993) ksd · cites it 15× “Accordingly, defendant contends that plaintiff could not have “filed” his complaint on March 17, 1992, because he did not pay the filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914 until August 7, 1992. Defendant’s argument seems to turn on whether the filing fee requirement of 28 U.”
Rosa v. Doe (2023) ca2 · cites it 2× “See 28 U.S.C. § 1914 . Believing that payment of the 25 $402 filing fee would render him unable to pay for essentials, Rosa moved for leave 26 to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.”
McFarland v. Scott (1994) scotus · cites it 2× “" 28 U. S. C. § 1914 (a) (emphasis added). This indicates that the institution of a proceeding requires the filing of an "application," which petitioner has not done.”
Jason Lee Harris v. J. Kenneth Mangum (2017) ca9 “28 U.S.C. § 1914 . Upon demonstrating indigence, however, a plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis, i.”
Andrews v. Cervantes (2007) ca9 “he is informed and believes that when he is released from the Tacoma facility, he will be move to a[DCR] facility.”
Kalitta Air L.L.C. v. Central Texas Airborne System Inc. (2013) ca9 · cites it 3× “2012) (en banc), we conclude § 1920(l)’s reference to fees of the clerk draws its meaning from 28 U.S.C. § 1914 , which authorizes the district court to collect a filing fee and “such additional fees only as are prescribed by the Judicial Conference of the United States,” 28 U.”
Wanamaker v. Columbian Rope Co. (1989) nynd · cites it 7× “1985), a case heavily relied upon by defendants, after a thorough analysis of the relevant case law, the court held that an action was not filed for purposes of commencing such action until the filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914 and the local rule therein was paid.”
Maria Escobedo v. Apple American Group (2015) ca9 “” A related statutory provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1914 (a) provides that “[t]he clerk of each district court shall require the parties instituting any civil action .”
Keith v. Heckler (1985) vaed · cites it 9× “§ 1917 (appeal fees), supra, and compared it with 28 U.S.C. § 1914 (district court filing fees), which presently reads in full: § 1914.”
Orbain Owens v. George Keeling (2006) ca6 · cites it 2× “Title 28 U.S.C. § 1914 (a) provides that “[t]he clerk of each district court shall require the parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in such court, whether by original process, removal or otherwise, to pay a filing fee of $350 .”
Show all 8,921 citing cases →
— 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) — 30 cases
United States v. Mahlon C. Mohr (1960) ca4
Weaver v. Thomas (1975) txsd
David Thompson v. E. Taboada, RJDCF Litigation Coordinator; M. Frederick, RJDCF Correctional Counselor (CCI); Does 1‒10, (2025) casd
Oluwatoyin Aborisade v. Milton Washington (2025) almd
Demarcus Keyon Cole v. Shawn Phillips (2026) tned
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.