Washington v. CT Corp Systems, et al

Filing 61

ORDER denying 60 Motion for Reconsideration; and directing the Clerk not to tax costs upon Plaintiff. Ordered by Judge Clay D. Land on 06/14/2012.(aaf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATHENS DIVISION
ELIJAH R. WASHINGTON,

*

Plaintiff,

*

vs.

*
CASE NO. 3:11-CV-29 (CDL)

VERIZON
COMMUNICATIONS,
INC. *
and VERIZON PENSION PLAN FOR
MID-ATLANTIC ASSOCS.,
*
Defendants.

*
O R D E R

After

the

Court

granted

Defendants’

Motion

for

Summary

Judgment (ECF No. 47), Washington v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., No.
3:11-CV-29 (CDL), 2012 WL 2025259 (M.D. Ga. June 5, 2012), and
the

Clerk

Defendants

entered
and

Judgment

generally

(ECF

No.

awarded

57)

costs

in

to

favor

the

of

the

Defendants,

Plaintiff Elijah Washington (“Washington”) filed a motion for
reconsideration (ECF No. 60).

For the reasons that follow, the

Court denies Washington’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No.
60); however, the Court does find that each party should bear
its own costs and therefore directs that the Clerk not tax costs
upon Washington.
DISCUSSION
Washington filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the
Court’s

Order

granting

summary

judgment

to

Defendants

and

requesting that the Court modify the Judgment to the extent it
awards costs to the Defendants.
Eleventh

Circuit

has

Resp. to J., ECF No. 60.

recognized

that

The

reconsideration

is

justified where there is: (1) new evidence; (2) an intervening
change or development in controlling law; and (3) the need to
correct the court's clear error or manifest injustice.

Hood v.

Perdue, 300 F. App'x 699, 700 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
The Court finds that Washington has not satisfied any of these
grounds for reconsideration and denies Washington’s motion to
the

extent

it

seeks

reconsideration

of

the

summary

judgment

order.
Washington also seeks to modify the Judgment’s award of
costs to Defendants.

Resp. to J. 2.

The Court has the power to

review the Clerk's award of costs on a motion served within
seven

days

Washington’s

of

the

motion

award.
was

Fed.

filed

R.

after

Civ.

P.

judgment

was

54(d)(1).
entered

awarding costs generally to Defendants but before costs were
actually taxed.

Therefore, the Court finds that Washington has

contested an award of costs in a timely manner.
Washington seeks to avoid paying the costs because of his
indigent

status.

Federal

Rule

of

Civil

provides that costs should be allowed
"[u]nless

a

federal

provides otherwise."

statute,

these

Procedure

to a prevailing party

rules,

or

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1).

2

54(d)(1)

a

court

order

The Eleventh

Circuit has clarified that Rule 54(d)(1) creates a presumption
that costs will be awarded to a prevailing party.

Chapman v. AI

Transp., 229 F.3d 1012, 1038 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

Costs

may

forma

be

awarded

against

a

party

who

is

proceeding

in

pauperis.

Ang v. Coastal Int'l Sec., Inc., 417 F. App'x 836,

838

Cir.

(11th

2011)

(per

curiam).

A

district

court

may,

however, consider the financial status of a non-prevailing party
and in its discretion order that costs not be awarded.

Id.

Court permitted Washington to proceed in forma pauperis.
Only Order Mar. 8, 2011.

The
Text

Taking this into consideration and in

its discretion, the Court orders that each party shall bear its
own costs.

Thus, the Court directs the Clerk not to tax costs

against Washington.
CONCLUSION
The Court denies Washington’s motion for reconsideration
(ECF

No.

60)

Defendants.

of

its

grant

of

summary

judgment

in

favor

of

The Court, however, directs the Clerk not to tax

costs upon Washington.

Each side shall bear their own costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 14th day of June, 2012.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3