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