Thornberry v. Kernan et al

Filing 127

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 10/7/2021 SUSTAINING 126 Objection to Bill of Costs and DENYING 125 Bill of Costs in total. (Coll, A) Modified on 10/13/2021 (Coll, A).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DANIEL LEE THORNBERRY,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:17-cv-00953-TLN-DMC

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

J. BAL, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

This matter is before the Court on Defendants J. Bal, M. Bobbala, James Chau, Michael

18

Felder, and C. Smith’s (“Defendants”) Bill of Costs. (ECF No. 125.) Plaintiff Daniel Lee

19

Thornberry (“Plaintiff”) has filed an opposition. (ECF No. 126.)

20

On March 16, 2021, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations herein

21

recommending granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 111) and denying

22

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as moot (ECF No. 104). On May 21, 2021, this Court

23

adopted the findings and recommendations and entered judgment closing the case. (ECF Nos.

24

123, 124.) Defendants subsequently filed a Bill of Costs, which included fees of $828.30 for

25

printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case. (ECF No.

26

125.) On June 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed an opposition. (ECF No. 126.) In his opposition, Plaintiff

27

asks the Court to deny Defendants’ legal fees based on Plaintiff’s indigent status. (Id.) Plaintiff

28

supports his request by stating he is indigent and unable to pay, and the purpose of Defendants’
1

1
2

request is retaliatory and discouraging to future litigants. (Id.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) and Eastern District Local Rule 292 govern costs

3

to the prevailing party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1); see also E.D. Cal. L. R. 292. A prevailing party

4

is one that has obtained some relief on the merits of the claims. Tubbs v. Sacramento Cnty. Jail,

5

258 F.R.D. 657, 660 (E.D. Cal. 2009). Generally, the prevailing party is entitled to recover costs

6

even in the case of indigent prisoner litigants who have been granted leave to proceed in forma

7

pauperis. Id. at 661 (finding that Rule 54(d)(1) creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs

8

to a prevailing party). However, in a civil rights action, the court may consider a plaintiff’s

9

limited resources as an appropriate reason to deny costs. Id. at 661. Consequently, an indigent

10
11

plaintiff can overcome Rule 54’s presumption by showing a reason to deny costs. Id.
Here, Plaintiff is an indigent prisoner who proceeded in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 6.)

12

Plaintiff is the losing party in his case but has limited financial resources. (ECF No. 126.)

13

Imposing legal costs on indigent prisoners who do not have the means to pay may chill future

14

civil rights litigants from pursuing justice. Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 178 F.3d 1069, 1080 (9th

15

Cir. 1999). The Ninth Circuit has approved the following as appropriate reasons for denying

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

against plaintiff would be inequitable.”).

24

The Court finds Plaintiff would be financially harmed if forced to pay these costs.

25

Moreover, the imposition of these fees on a Plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis in a civil rights

26

case could have a chilling effect on future litigants.

27
28

For the aforementioned reasons, the Court hereby SUSTAINS Plaintiff’s Objection to
Defendant’s Bill of Costs (ECF No. 126) and DENIES Defendants’ Bill of Costs in total (ECF
2

1
2
3

No. 125).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: October 7, 2021

4
5
6
7

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3