El-Shaddai v. Wheeler et al

Filing 143

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/27/12 ORDERING that Plaintiff's objections to the bill of cost are overruled. The bill of costs shall be taxed by separate order. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11 ADONAI EL-SHADDAI,
NO. CIV S-06-1898 KJM-EFB
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13

ORDER

14 B. WHEELER, et al.,
15

Defendants.
________________________________/

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, brought an action against defendants under 42 U.S.C.

18 § 1983. A jury trial was held in October 2011, and a judgment was rendered in favor of
19 defendants on October 5, 2011. On October 12, 2011, defendants filed a bill of costs seeking
20 $1,669.56. Plaintiff objected to the bill of costs on November 2, 2011. The cases cited by
21 plaintiff relate to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5, which is irrelevant to a
22 losing plaintiff in a civil rights action. Apart from a broad catchall statement, plaintiff has not
23 raised any arguments that rebut the presumption of costs being awarded to the prevailing party.
24 FED. R. CIV. P. 54(d); see Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 944–45 (9th Cir.
25 2003).
26

In particular, plaintiff has not identified any specific ground that may justify

27 reducing the taxation of costs. See Janoe v. Stone, No. 06–CV–1511–JM, 2012 WL 70424, at
28 *1-3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2012). In Janoe, a prisoner plaintiff who lost at trial on a First

1 Amendment retaliation claim objected to costs being assessed against him, “argu[ing] that
2 taxation of costs in prisoner civil rights cases will place an unfair burden on him and other
3 similarly situated prisoners, essentially creating a chilling effect.” Id. at *2. The court there
4 concluded “plaintiff's arguments based on his indigence and the possible chilling effect of
5 assessing costs in this case are insufficient to rebut the presumption in favor of awarding costs.”
6 Id. Similarly, here, plaintiff has not offered a compelling reason for why the presumption of
7 costs being awarded to the prevailing party should not apply. Plaintiff’s objections to the bill of
8 cost are overruled. The bill of costs shall be taxed by separate order.
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 DATED: August 27, 2012.
11
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2