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)

Download PDF
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?