Davis v. Woodford et al
Filing
181
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 2/19/15. Plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED and Defendants are granted costs in the amount of $758.80. (Manzer, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CHARLES T. DAVIS,
12
15
2:05-cv-1898-JAM-EFB
Plaintiff,
13
14
No.
v.
EDDIE SIMMERSON, ANTHONY
AMERO, CHARLES HOUGHLAND and
BRYON VON RADER,
16
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS’ BILL
OF COSTS
Defendants.
17
Defendants Eddie Simmerson, Anthony Amero, Charles
18
19
Houghland, and Bryon Von Rader (collectively “Defendants”)
20
submitted a bill of costs (Doc. #176). 1
21
Davis (“Plaintiff”) filed an opposition (Doc. #179) asserting
22
several objections to the bill of costs.
Plaintiff Charles T.
23
I.
24
Plaintiff, a California prison inmate, brought this suit
25
26
BACKGROUND
against Defendants, alleging civil rights violations.
The matter
27
1
28
This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g).
1
1
was tried before a jury and a verdict was returned, finding for
2
Defendants on all causes of action.
3
in favor of Defendants against Plaintiff, Defendants submitted
4
their bill of costs requesting $758.80 in costs for witness fees
5
and fees associated with recorded transcripts.
After judgment was entered
6
7
II.
OPINION
8
A.
Legal Standard
9
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides, in
10
pertinent part:
11
court order provides otherwise, costs—other than attorney’s fees—
12
should be allowed to the prevailing party.”
13
54(d)(1).
14
taxed against the losing party, but “vests in the district court
15
discretion to refuse to award costs” if the losing party shows
16
why costs should not be awarded.
17
v. State of California, 231 F.3d 572, 591-92 (9th Cir. 2000) (en
18
banc).
19
(“§1920”).
20
“Unless a federal statute, these rules, or a
Fed. R. Civ. P.
This rule creates a presumption that costs will be
Ass’n of Mexican-Am. Educators
The costs a court may tax are listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1920
If the court declines to award costs, it must “specify
21
reasons” for denying costs.
22
Inc. v. Southern Cal. Theater Owners Ass’n, 576 F.2d 230, 234
23
(9th Cir. 1978)).
24
decision to abide by the presumption and tax costs to the losing
25
party.
26
Cir. 2003) (citing Ass’n of Mexican-Am. Educators, 231 F.3d at
27
592-93).
28
Id. (citing Subscription Television,
However, it need not specify reasons for its
Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 945 (9th
The Ninth Circuit has discussed proper reasons for denying
2
1
costs, including: (1) the losing party's limited financial
2
resources; (2) the prevailing party's misconduct; (3) the
3
potential chilling effect of imposing high costs on civil rights
4
litigants; (4) the nature of the prevailing party's recovery;
5
(5) the losing party's good faith in litigating; and (6) the
6
importance of the case.
7
Co., Inc., 342 F.3d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 2003).
Champion Produce, Inc. v. Ruby Robinson
8
B.
Discussion
9
Plaintiff objects to the entire bill of costs on two
10
grounds.
11
suggests the verdict was obtained by “intrinsic fraud” and
12
therefore Defendants should not be allowed “to benefit from their
13
own wrong-doing.”
14
alleged fraud, and the Court finds no evidence of it.
15
objection is therefore overruled.
Plaintiff first contends there is evidence that
Plaintiff submits no further detail as to the
The
16
Plaintiff next objects on the grounds that he is an
17
“indigent inmate” and argues the Court should take this into
18
consideration when considering whether to grant costs.
19
discussed above, a losing party’s financial circumstances are a
20
factor that can be considered by the Court, however, 28 U.S.C.
21
§ 1915(f) clearly provides for the full payment of costs by a
22
plaintiff prisoner if so ordered by the Court.
23
provides for the payment of such costs through an incremental
24
payment plan, thereby reducing any burden on Plaintiff.
25
addition, the amount requested by Defendants is relatively
26
minimal.
27
28
As
It further
Id.
In
Outside of his indigence, Plaintiff puts forth no further
arguments as to why the Court should deny Defendants’ costs.
3
The
1
Court finds the arguments and evidence insufficient to rebut the
2
presumption in favor of awarding costs.
3
No. 2:10-CV-0032 KJM EFB, 2014 WL 3689718, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal.
4
2014); Janoe v. Stone, No. 06-CV-1511-JM, 2012 WL 70424, at *2-3
5
(S.D. Cal. 2012).
6
objection.
See Draper v. Rosario,
The Court therefore overrules Plaintiff’s
7
8
9
III.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, the Court overrules
10
Plaintiff’s objections and GRANTS Defendants’ costs.
11
awarded are $758.80.
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 19, 2015
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Total costs
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?