Lemire et al v. State of California et al

Filing 126

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 9/9/11 ORDERING that the Defendants' bill of costs is denied. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9

SHELLY LEMIRE, individually and
as a personal representative for
the ESTATE OF ROBERT ST. JOVITE,
GERARD CHARLES ST. JOVITE, and
NICOLE ST. JOVITE,
Plaintiffs,

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

v.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,
JAMES E. TILTON, TOM L. CAREY,
D.K. SISTO, REBECCA CAHOON,
ALFREDO ALCARAZ, RAYMOND WADE,
CHERYL ORRICK, GALE MARTINEZ,
GORDON WONG, JAMES NUEHRING,
SHABREEN HAK, ALVARADO TRAQUINA,
ALFREDO NORIEGA, JOHN M. DUSAY,
C. HOLLIDAY, JAIME CHUA, DODIE
HICKS,
Defendants.
________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:08-cv-00455-GEB-EFB
ORDER

Plaintiffs object to Defendants’ bill of costs, in which

21

8,128.36 is sought.

Defendants prevailed in this action when their

22

summary judgment motion was granted on Plaintiffs’ Eighth and Fourteenth

23

Amendment claims alleged under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Those claims concerned

24

the death of Robert St. Jovite, who died when he was an incarcerated

25

inmate at California State Prison located in Solano County.

26

Plaintiffs argue they should not have to pay Defendants’

27

costs, since “forcing the [P]laintiffs to pay costs--even the relatively

28

small costs of this case--would place an insurmountable financial burden

1

1

on [P]laintiffs.” (Pls.’ Objections to Defs.’ Bill of Costs 2:26-28.)

2

Plaintiffs further argue their claims concerned “serious civil rights

3

issues of public concern,” and that “[t]he Court should not ignore the

4

potential chilling effect of forcing plaintiffs of limited means to pay

5

the costs of bringing legitimate constitutional violations to the

6

Court’s attention.” Id. 2:12-14. Defendants rejoin they should recover

7

their costs since “Plaintiffs did not show that they are in dire

8

financial circumstances or that an award of costs would bankrupt them or

9

make them indigent,” and since “an award of costs will not have a

10

chilling effect on future civil rights cases.” (Defs.’ Reply 4:19-20,

11

5:11-12.)

12

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 54(d) prescribes that

13

“costs . . . should be allowed to the prevailing party” unless a federal

14

statute, rule of civil procedure, or court order provides otherwise.

15

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). Rule 54(d) “creates a presumption in favor of

16

awarding costs to a prevailing party, but vests in the district court

17

discretion to refuse to award costs.” Ass’n of Mexican-Am. Educators v.

18

State of Cal., 231 F.3d 572, 591 (9th Cir. 2000). “That discretion is

19

not unlimited. A district court must ‘specify reasons’ for its refusal

20

to award costs.” Id. (quoting Subscription Television, Inc. v. S. Cal.

21

Theatre Owners Ass’n, 576 F.2d 230, 234 (9th Cir. 1978)). “District

22

courts should consider the financial resources of the plaintiff[s] and

23

the amount of costs in civil rights cases.” Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal.,

24

178 F.3d 1069, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999). A district court may also consider

25

“the chilling effect of imposing . . . high costs on future civil rights

26

litigants,” and whether a case is of “public importance.” Ass’n of

27

Mexican-Am. Educators, 231 F.3d at 592-93.

28
2

1

Here, Plaintiff Sherie Lemire avers: “my only income is $668

2

a month in Social Security,” and “I have had two mini-strokes and as a

3

result have significant medical expenses[.]” (Decl. of Sherie Lemire ¶¶

4

6-7.) Plaintiff Nicole St. Jovite avers: “I am . . . on . . . state

5

public assistance for myself and my two young children [and] [m]y income

6

is less than $1000 per month. I also receive $200 per month in child

7

support.” (Decl. of Nicole St. Jovite ¶¶ 2-3.) Nicole St. Jovite also

8

avers that her rent and utility costs are $540.00 per month. Id. ¶ 4.

9

Plaintiff Gerard St. Jovite avers: “My only income is $1800 a month [in

10

social security] which supports both me and my wife[.]” (Decl. of Gerard

11

St. Jovite ¶¶ 2, 7.) Gerard St. Jovite also avers: “I have had two heart

12

attacks and three strokes, and as a consequence I have significant

13

monthly medical expenses[.]” Id. ¶ 8. These averments indicate that

14

Plaintiffs

15

discussion below the issue whether Plaintiffs are in dire financial

16

circumstances such that costs should not be imposed is not reached.

have

limited

financial

resources,

but

because

of

the

17

Because this case included the issue whether a prison official

18

has a duty to render aid to a prisoner in need of life saving measures

19

when the prisoner was found not breathing in a prison cell,

20

costs on Plaintiffs “may chill civil rights litigation in this area” of

21

the law. Stanley, 178 F.3d at 1080. Therefore, Defendants’ bill of costs

22

is denied.

23

Dated:

September 9, 2011

24
25
26

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

27
28
3

imposing