Pope v. Garcia et al

Filing 56

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 7/12/2013 ORDERING that the court exercises its discretion to DECLINE to tax costs in favor of Defendants re 55 Bill of Costs Submitted. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JACOBY POPE,
NO. CIV. S-11-0101 LKK/AC P

11
12

Plaintiff,
v.
O R D E R

13

R. GARCIA, et al.,
Defendant.

14

/
15
16

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

17

$967.00.

Defs’ Bill of Costs, ECF No. 55.

For the reasons

18

provided herein, the court declines to award costs to Defendants.

19

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this

20

case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for alleged deprivation of his

21

rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

22

claim was based upon the Defendants’ taking, and management of,

23

materials mailed to Plaintiff by Attorney Paul Echols.

24

alleged that, without access to his legal materials, he was unable

25

to timely file his habeas petition and was procedurally barred from

26

seeking federal habeas relief.

Plaintiff’s

Plaintiff

Following this court’s review of
1

1

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, judgment was entered for

2

Defendants. See Findings & Recommendations, ECF No. 52; Order, ECF

3

No. 53.

4

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

5

costs to the prevailing party in a civil matter.1

6

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

7

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

8

allowed to the prevailing party.”

9

that costs will be taxed against the losing party.

Pursuant to

This rule creates a presumption
Ass’n of

10

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

11

Cir.

12

demonstrated why costs should not be awarded, the rule “vests in

13

the district court discretion to refuse to award costs.”

14

591; Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 945 (9th Cir.

15

2003) (“the losing party must show why costs should not be

16

awarded”). If the court declines to award costs, it must state its

17

reasons, giving the reviewing court an opportunity to determine if

18

that discretion was abused.

2000)

(en

banc).

However,

if

the

losing

party

has

Id., at

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

19

In considering whether costs should be denied, this court

20

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

21

chilling effect of imposing such high costs on future civil rights

22

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

23

and whether Plaintiff’s case, although unsuccessful, had some

24

merit.

Ass’n of Mexican-American Educators, 231 F.3d at 592-93.

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
2

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, is indigent.

At the initiation

3

of this lawsuit, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma

4

pauperis, in which he attested that, although he “received sums of

5

$400 from a friend of the family, twice” in the year before he

6

filed the application, he had no other assets or income.

7

Appl., ECF No. 2.

8

statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action.

9

6.

Pl’s

This court then required Plaintiff to pay the
Order, ECF No.

10

The court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated

11

that he has limited financial resources. Taxing Plaintiff $967.00

12

in costs would chill future civil rights litigants, especially

13

those of modest means.

14

was ultimately unsuccessful, it raised issues of merit.

15

presumption that costs should be awarded to the prevailing party

16

is rebutted in this case.

17
18

Furthermore, even though Plaintiff’s case
The

Accordingly, the court exercises its discretion to DECLINE to
tax costs in favor of Defendants.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

DATED:

July 12, 2013.

21
22
23
24
25
26
3