Gorton v. Todd et al

Filing 234

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 4/12/13 ORDERING that the court exercises its discretion to decline to tax costs in favor of Defendants in this case. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
CHARLES ROBERT GORTON,
10
Plaintiff,
NO. CIV. S-08-3069 LKK/GGH P

11
v.
12
TODD, et al.,

O R D E R

13
Defendants.
/

14
15

The court is in receipt of Defendants’ Bill of Costs, totaling

16

$9,145.54.

Defs’ Bill of Costs, ECF No. 231.

17

asserting that he is indigent and that taxing costs again him would

18

be inequitable.

19

herein, the court declines to award costs to Defendants.

Pl’s Obj., ECF No. 232.

Plaintiff objects,

For the reasons provided

20

This case arose from the medical treatment of Plaintiff

21

Charles Robert Gorton, a state prisoner, by Defendants Robert

22

Hawkins and Sahir Naseer, physicians for the California Department

23

of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”).

24

claims against Defendants for their delays in treatment of his

25

kidney disorder, arguing that such delays constituted medical

26

malpractice and violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment.
1

Plaintiff brought

1

Following trial, the jury found in favor of Defendants on all

2

claims.

3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) governs the taxation of

4

costs to the prevailing party in a civil matter.1

5

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), unless a court order

6

provides otherwise, costs (other than attorney’s fees) “should be

7

allowed to the prevailing party.”

8

that costs will be taxed against the losing party.

9

Mexican-American Educators v. California, 231 F.3d 572, 591-93 (9th

10

Cir. 2000) (en banc). However, if the losing party shows why costs

11

should not be awarded, the rule “vests in the district court

12

discretion to refuse to award costs.” Id., at 591; Save Our Valley

13

v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (“the losing

14

party must show why costs should not be awarded”).

15

declines to award costs, it must state its reasons, giving the

16

reviewing court an opportunity to determine if that discretion was

17

abused.

Pursuant to

This rule creates a presumption
Ass’n of

If the court

Save Our Valley, 335 F.3d at 945.

18

In considering Plaintiff’s request that costs be denied, this

19

court considers: the losing party’s limited financial resources;

20

the chilling effect of imposing such high costs on future civil

21

rights litigants; whether the issues in the case are close and

22

difficult; and whether Plaintiff’s case, although unsuccessful, had

23

some merit.

24

93.

Ass’n of Mexican-American Educators, 231 F.3d at 592-

25
1

26

In the Eastern District of California, this rule
implemented by Local Rule 292. E.D. Cal. R. 292 (2013).
2

is

1

It appears undisputed that Plaintiff, a state prisoner, is

2

indigent.

3

application to proceed in forma pauperis, in which he attested that

4

he was paid $0.10 per hour and that he had no other assets aside

5

from $450.00 held in an account at Altura Credit Union.

6

Application, ECF No. 2.

7

is indigent, in response to Defendants’ submitted bill of costs.

8

See Pl’s Obj., ECF No. 232, at 1.

9

Plaintiff $9,145.54 in costs would chill future civil rights

10

At the initiation of this lawsuit, Plaintiff filed an

Pl’s

Plaintiff has recently reiterated that he

The court finds that taxing

litigants, especially those of modest means.

11

The court further finds that the issues in this case were

12

close, and that Plaintiff’s case had some merit, notwithstanding

13

the jury verdict against him. This court denied Defendants’ motion

14

for summary judgment, in part, because each party proffered the

15

testimony of experts, who had reached contrary conclusions as to

16

whether the actions of Defendants Hawkins and Naseer fell within

17

the applicable standards of care.

18

turned, in large part, upon the weight given to each expert’s

19

testimony, the issues presented in this case were close and

20

difficult.

21
22

Because the jury’s finding

Accordingly, the court exercises its discretion to decline to
tax costs in favor of Defendants in this case.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

DATED:

April 12, 2013.

25
26
3