Bradley v. County of Sacramento Department of Human Assistance of Northern California Welfare Division et al

Filing 90

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 3/18/2019 DENYING 79 Bill of Costs and SUSTAINING Plaintiff's 87 Objections. (York, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RUBY BRADLEY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

No. 2:13-cv-02420-TLN-DB

v.
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
ASSISTANCE OF NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA WELFARE DIVISION, et
al.,

17

ORDER DENYING COSTS AND
SUSTAINING PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTIONS

Defendants.

18
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Ruby Bradley’s (“Plaintiff”) objections to the

19
20

Bill of Costs submitted by Defendant County of Sacramento (“Defendant”), who prevailed in this

21

matter. (ECF No. 87.) For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's objections are SUSTAINED

22

and Defendant’s costs are DENIED.

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
1

1

I.

2

On June 26, 2017, the magistrate judge assigned to this case issued findings and

3

recommendations recommending that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 53)

4

be granted. (ECF No. 70.) This Court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and

5

recommendations in full, and the case was closed. (ECF No. 77.) Defendant submitted a Bill of

6

Costs on October 2, 2017. (ECF No. 79.) On October 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal

7

to the Ninth Circuit.1 (ECF No. 80.) Following this notice, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in

8

forma pauperis (ECF No. 83) which was accordingly granted (ECF No. 85.) Plaintiff then filed

9

objections to the Bill of Costs, arguing that the imposition of these costs “will cause a financial

10

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

hardship to the [P]laintiff.” (ECF No. 87 at 2.)

11

II.

STANDARD OF LAW

12

Under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 54(d)(1), the prevailing party in a lawsuit shall recover its costs

13

“unless . . . a court order provides otherwise.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). The rule creates a

14

presumption that costs will be taxed against the losing party, but “vests in the district court

15

discretion to refuse to award costs” if the losing party shows why costs should not be awarded.

16

See Ass’n of Mexican-Am. Educators v. State of Cal., 231 F.3d 572, 591 (9th Cir. 2000).
A prevailing party’s ability to recover costs under Rule 54(d)(1) is limited by 28 U.S.C. §

17
18

1920 and, in this District, by Local Rule 292. See 28 U.S.C. § 1920; L.R. 292(f). See also

19

Crane-McNab v. Cty. of Merced, No. 1:08-cv-1218-WBS-SMS, 2011 WL 794284, at *1 (E.D.

20

Cal. Mar. 1, 2011) (“Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 292

21

govern the taxation of costs to losing parties, which are generally subject to limits set under 28

22

U.S.C. § 1920.”). 28 U.S.C. § 1920 enumerates which fees and expenses the Court may tax as

23

costs. Local Rule 292(a) prescribes that “[c]osts shall be taxed in conformity with the provisions

24

of 28 U.S.C. § 1920” and Local Rule 292(f) provides a list of specific fees and expenses that are

25

taxable as costs. L.R. 292(a), (f). 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) provides that courts may tax as costs

26

“[f]ees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are

27
1

28

The Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum and mandate affirming the decision of this Court. (ECF Nos. 86,

89.)

2

1

necessarily obtained for use in the case.” If the court declines to award costs, it must specify its

2

reasons for doing so. Berkla v. Corel Corp., 302 F.3d 909, 921 (9th Cir. 2002).

3

III.

ANALYSIS

4

Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s Bill of Costs and argues she should not be forced to pay

5

costs because she would be financially harmed if forced to do so. (ECF No. 79.) Defendant, in

6

response, argues that Plaintiff’s objections to the Bill of Costs were untimely filed as, per Local

7

Rule 292(c), any objections to items specified in a Bill of Costs must be filed and served within

8

seven days of the Bill of Costs filing. (ECF No. 88 at 3.) Here, Defendant’s Bill of Costs was

9

filed on October 2, 2017. (ECF No. 79.) Although objections were due on or before October 9,

10

2017, the Court will consider the substance of Plaintiff’s objections. See Bryant v. Gallagher,

11

No. 1:11-CV-00446-BAM-PC, 2017 WL 2671013, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 21, 2017) (considering a

12

party’s objections even though the “objections may be disregarded as untimely”); Fonseca v.

13

Secor Int’l, Inc., No. CV-04-1117-ST, 2005 WL 1587065, at *1 (D. Or. June 13, 2005).

14

Defendant next argues that Plaintiff has not sufficiently shown that her financial condition

15

warrants denial of costs. (ECF No. 88 at 3.) Defendant cites to cases from other circuits arguing

16

that Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status is not sufficient to show inability to pay. (ECF No. 88 at

17

3–4 (citing Chapman v. A.I. Transport, 229 F.3d. 1012, 1039 (11th Cir. 2000) and McGill v.

18

Faulkner, 18 F.3d. 456, 459 (7th Cir. 1994).) This Court is not persuaded by Defendant’s

19

argument. The Ninth Circuit has approved the following as appropriate reasons for denying

20

costs: “(1) a losing party’s limited financial resources; (2) misconduct by the prevailing party; and

21

(3) the chilling effect of imposing . . . high costs on future civil rights litigants.” Champion

22

Produce, Inc. v. Ruby Robinson Co., 342 F.3d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Ofeldt v.

23

Nevada, No. 3:10-CV-00420-LRH, 2010 WL 4607016, at *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 5, 2010) (“The court

24

takes judicial notice of plaintiff’s limited resources as demonstrated in his application to proceed

25

in forma pauperis . . . and based on such limited resources, combined with the possibility that the

26

imposition of the award would have a chilling effect on civil rights litigants, an award of costs

27

against plaintiff would be inequitable.”); Tater-Alexander v. Amerjan, No. 1:08-CV-00372

28

OWW, 2011 WL 1740697, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 3, 2011); Meeks v. Parsons, No. 1:03-CV-6700
3

1

OWW, 2010 WL 2867847, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 21, 2010). Here, Plaintiff brought a claim

2

alleging unlawful employment discrimination. (ECF No. 1.) The Court finds, pursuant to the

3

motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 83) and order granting the motion (ECF No 85),

4

that Plaintiff would be financially harmed if forced to pay these costs.2 Moreover, the imposition

5

of these fees on a Plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis in a civil rights case could have a

6

chilling effect on future litigants.

7

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections are sustained, and the Bill of Costs are denied.

8

IV.

9

It is HEREBY ordered that Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF No. 87) to Defendant’s Bill of

10

CONCLUSION

Costs are sustained, and the Bill of Costs (ECF No. 79) is denied.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated: March 18, 2019

14
15

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2

28

It is evident Plaintiff has limited means. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis shows total monthly
expenses as $3,134, and total income as $3,320.92. (ECF No. 83 at 2, 7.)

4