Uribe v. Babienco et al
Filing
143
ORDER AWARDING REDUCED COSTS by Judge Alsup on 10/12/2016. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/12/2016)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
CESAR URIBE,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER AWARDING REDUCED
COSTS
PHILIP BABIENCO,
Defendant.
/
15
16
17
No. C 13-01106 WHA
INTRODUCTION
On September 9, the clerk entered a bill of costs of $3,367.24 in favor of defendant as
18
the prevailing party in this case. Plaintiff timely objected pursuant to L.R. 54-2. For the
19
reasons that follow, plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED IN PART.
20
21
STATEMENT
On July 27, a jury reached a unanimous verdict for defendant Philip Babienco.
22
Judgment was entered the next day. Defendant submitted a bill of costs on August 10 for
23
$4,327.52 (Dkt. No. 128), but amended the amount to $3,747.04 the following day (Dkt. No.
24
129). On September 9, the clerk taxed costs against plaintiff in the amount of $3,367.24 (Dkt.
25
No. 137). Plaintiff objects to this amount and asks this Court to exercise its discretion to deny
26
costs pursuant to FRCP 54.
27
28
ANALYSIS
FRCP 54(d)(1) states, “[u]nless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides
otherwise, costs – other than attorney’s fees – should be allowed to the prevailing party. Our
1
court of appeals has interpreted the statute as creating “a presumption for awarding costs to
2
prevailing parties; the losing party must show why costs should not be awarded.” Save Our
3
Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 944–45 (9th Cir. 2003). The district courts have
4
discretion to award, reduce, or deny costs. Ass’n of Mexican-American Educators v. State of
5
Cal., 231 F.3d 572, 593 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Guitron v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 619 F.
6
App’x 590, 592 (9th Cir. 2015); Carter v. Univ. Haw., 176 F. App’x 815, 816 (9th Cir. 2006).
7
In determining whether to exercise that discretion, factors to consider include, but are not
8
limited to: (1) the substantial public importance of the case, (2) the closeness and difficulty of
9
the issues in the case, (3) the chilling effect on future similar actions, (4) the plaintiff's limited
financial resources, and (5) the economic disparity between the parties. Draper v. Rosario, No.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
14-16340, 2016 WL 4651407, at *11 (9th Cir. Sept. 7, 2016). A losing party need not
12
demonstrate that all five factors weigh against imposing costs. Ibid.
13
In this case, all five factors weigh against imposing costs. First, the case has
14
“substantial public importance” because, as our court of appeals noted in Draper, “[i]ndividual
15
Eighth Amendment cases are important for safeguarding the rights and safety of prisoners.” Id.
16
at *12. Second, like Draper, this case was close enough to survive summary judgment and
17
ultimately “turned on which competing account of events the jurors believed.” Third, in
18
Draper, our court of appeals found “a large cost award” of $3,018.35 — less than the amount
19
billed here — “could chill similar lawsuits challenging Eighth Amendment violations in jails
20
and prisons,” particularly for cases that, like this one, “ultimately turn on the jury’s
21
determination of whose account of the event is more credible.” Ibid. Fourth, plaintiff, a
22
“prison inmate of . . . modest means,” has limited financial resources (Dkt. No. 131 at 3). And
23
fifth, as was the case in Draper, there is “no comparison between [plaintiff’s] limited resources
24
and those of the state of California, which bore the defense costs.” Draper, supra, at *13.
25
Defendant argues plaintiff “has money to pay costs associated with litigation” because
26
he “has money in his trust account,” and “received $4,500 as a monetary settlement” in a prior
27
case but gave it away (Dkt. No. 135 at 2). That plaintiff has $10.04 in his trust account (Dkt.
28
No. 134) — an amount defendant conveniently omitted — and received a one-time payment of
2
1
$4,500 prior to this case does not disprove that plaintiff has limited financial resources,
2
especially compared to those of the state of California. Defendant also points out plaintiff “can
3
certainly afford to pay . . . over time,” with a “monthly payment plan of twenty percent of [his]
4
income” (Dkt. No. 135 at 3). But if the total amount of costs is unjust, then spreading it out
5
with a payment plan does little to mitigate its injustice — especially if, as plaintiff observes, it
6
would take a prisoner approximately 25 years of full-time work to pay according to the plan
7
(Dkt. No. 140 at 4).
8
9
Defendant also argues an award of costs here “will not have a chilling [effect] on civil
rights litigation” because “[p]laintiff is well acquainted with the judicial system” and is a
“seasoned litigant.” (Dkt. No. 135 at 4). Defendant’s argument is inapposite. As plaintiff
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
correctly notes, the “chilling effect” our court of appeals warned of in Draper was not on any
12
particular litigant, seasoned or otherwise, but on a general group of “would-be litigants” with
13
similarly meritorious Eighth Amendment claims who “may choose not to risk an unsuccessful
14
lawsuit that could add to the fees and costs associated with conviction and imprisonment” (Dkt.
15
No. 140 at 3). Draper, supra, at *12. The danger of such a chilling effect presents here
16
regardless of whether plaintiff, specifically, would be deterred from filing future lawsuits.
17
While the circumstances in this case indicate plaintiff cannot reasonably afford to pay
18
$3,367.24 in costs, he can afford a “relatively trivial and somewhat symbolic” amount to
19
“comport with the spirit of Rule 54(d).” Martinez v. Cui, No. 06–40029–FDS, 2009 WL
20
3298080, at *5 (D. Mass. Apr. 13, 2009) (Judge Frank Saylor). This order therefore REDUCES
21
DEFENDANT’S BILL OF COSTS TO $200.
CONCLUSION
22
23
24
25
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s objections to defendant’s bill of costs are
OVERRULED IN PART. Costs are taxed against plaintiff in the amount of $200.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
27
Dated: October 12, 2016.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?