Bonds v. Fizer et al

Filing 68

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Ruben Castillo on 9/24/2014. Mailed notice (mgh, )

n'(:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER BONDS,

Plaintiff,
No. 09 C 2726
v.

Chief Judge Rub6n Castillo

DETECTM EDWIN FIZER and the
CITY OF CHICAGO,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On May 20,2010, this Court granted a motion for summary judgment in favor

of

Detective Edwin Fizer and the City of Chicago (collectively "Defendants"), and against Plaintiff
Christopher Bonds on Plaintiff s claims of false arrest, malicious prosecution, and

indemnification. (R. 43, Min. Entry;R.44, Mem. Op. & Order.) Presently before the Court is
Defendants' bill of costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d). (R. 48, Defs.' Bill

of Costs.) For the reasons stated below, the Court awards Defendants 56,252.11 in costs.

BACKGROUND
The Court assumes familiarity with the facts of this case as outlined in its May 20,2010

Memorandum Opinion and Order granting summary judgment. See Bonds v. Fizer,713F. Srpp.
2d 7 52,

7

56-59 (N.D.

Ill. 2010). The facts are repeated

here only as they pertain to this

bill of

costs. On June 28,2008, Plaintiff was arrested by Detective Fizer for an alleged assault on

Plaintiff

s

wife's elderly aunt who resided with him and his family at the time. (R. 1, Compl. fl!|

20-27.) The victim had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's and senile dementia earlier that year,
(id.11 8), and Plaintiff contends that she fabricated a story that Plaintiff had "roughed her up" and
was trying to

kill her, (id.1T 17). At the time of the incident, Plaintiff

was an officer with the

National Guard and an instructor at Chicago State University. (Id. fl 30.) Plaintiff alleges that
due to his occupational standing, several television stations ran stories on his arrest and showed a

photo of Plaintiff on the nightly news. (Id.) The Chicago Tribune also ran an article detailing
the allegations made in the anest. (ld.)

Plaintiff asserts that the media attention damaged his reputation in his community and
with the National Guard. (Id.nn30-32.) He also contends that his arrest led to the loss of

a

promotion to major in the National Guard and $32,000.00 in potential income; to advance to the
rank of major, he had to resign his commission in the National Guard and apply as a captain with
the United States Army Reserve. (1d.n32.) Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that he incurred

physical suffering, mental distress, monetary damages, and humiliation as a result of his arrest.

Ud.n37.) On October 6,2008, the victim of Plaintiff s alleged assault died

and the charges

against Plaintiff were dropped. (Id. fl 31.)
On May 4,2009, Plaintiff filed a three-count complaint against Defendants. (1d.) In
Count I, Plaintiff brought a42U.S.C. $ 1983 claim for false arrest, detention, and imprisonment.

(Id.1lll35-37). In Count II, Plaintiff brought

a state law claim

for malicious prosecution. (1d. flfl

38-41). In Count III, Plaintiff brought a state law claim for indemnification against the City of
Chicago. (ld.nn 42-44). On May 20,2010, this Court granted a motion for summary judgment
in favor of Defendants on Counts I and III, and dismissed Count II without prejudice for want

jurisdiction. (R. 44, Mem. Op. & Order.) Plaintiff appealed this Court's ruling on summary
judgment, and on July 21,2070, the Seventh Circuit dismissed his appeal for failure to timely
pay the required docketing fee. (R. 52, Notice of Appeal; R. 59, Final Order Mandate.)
On June 1 8, 201 0, Defendants filed a bill of costs pursuant to Rule 54(d), seeking
$7,047.00 in total costs. (R. 48, Bill of Costs.) Specifically, Defendants request $190.95 for

of

exemplification and copies of papers; $307.00 for subpoena fees; $5,908.70 for deposition
transcript costs; and $640.35 in other costs. (ld. at 1,3.) Plaintiff responded to Defendants'bill
of costs on September 14, 2010, (R. 64, Pl.'s Resp.), and Defendants replied on September 30,
2010, (R. 65, Defs.' Reply). Defendants' bill of costs is presently before the Court.

LEGAL STANDARI)
Pursuant to Rule 54(d), "costs

-

other than attorney's fees

-

should be allowed to the

prevailing party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(dXl). A district court may not tax costs under Rule 54(d),
however, "unless a federal statute authorizes an award of those costs." Republic Tobacco Co.
N. Atl. Trading Co.,

v.

Inc.,48l F.3d 442,447 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T.

Gibbons, Lnc.,482 U.S. 437, 441-43 (1987)). The list of recoverable costs authorized under 28

U.S.C. $ 1920 include:

(l)

Fees of the clerk and marshal;

(2) Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for
use in the case;

(3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses;
(4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials
where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case;
(5) Docket fees . . . ; [and]
(6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and
salaries, fees, expenses, and costs ofspecial interpretation services . . .
28

u.s.c. $ le20 (l)-(6).
Even if authorized by statute, however, 'oa cost must be both reasonable and necessary to

the litigation for a prevailing party to recover

it." Little

v. Mitsubishi Motors N. Am.,

Inc.,5l4

F.3d 699,702 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing Cengr v. Fusibond Piping Sys., Inc., 135 F.3d 445, 454 (7th

Cir. 1998); Mcllveenv. Stone Container Corp.,910 F.2d 1581, 1582-83 (7th Cir. 1990)). In

short, the determination of whether to tax costs against the losing party requires two inquiries:
"( I ) whether the cost imposed on the losing party is recoverable and (2)

if

so, whether the

amount assessed for that item was reasonable." Majeske v. City of Chi.,2l8 F.3d 816,824 (7th

Cir. 2000). Although there is a strong presumption that the prevailing party will recover costs,

Parkv. City of Chi.,297 F.3d 606, 617 (7thCir.2002),the "party seeking an award of costs
carries the burden of showing that the requested costs were necessarily incurred and reasonable."
Trs. of the Chi. Plastering Inst. Pension Trust v. Cork Plastering Co.,570 F.3d 890, 906 (7th

Cir. 2009). Once the prevailing party demonstrates that particular costs should be allowed, the
losing party then bears the burden to affirmatively show that the taxed costs are not appropriate.
Beamon v. Marshall & Ilsley Trust Co.,4l

I F.3d 854,864 (7th Cir. 2005). Generally, only the

losing party's inability to pay or misconduct by the prevailing party worthy of a penalty will
suffice to justify denying costs. Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926,945
(7th Cir. 1997) (citing Congregation of the Passion, Holy Cross Province v. Touche, Ross & Co.,

854F.2d219,222 (7th Cir. 1988)); see also Riverav. City of Chi.,469F.3d631,635 (7th Cir.
2006) (declining to abandon the indigence exception to Rule 54(d)). Ultimately, the decision

of

whether to award costs is within the Court's discretion. M.T. Bonk Co. v. Milton Bradley Co.,
945 F.2d 1404,1409 (7th

Cir. 1991).
ANALYSIS

Plaintiff disputes Defendants' calculations outlined in their bill of costs and argues that
costs should not be awarded because: (1) the costs sought by Defendants are not recoverable; (2)

Defendants request costs in excess of what they actually paid; (3) Defendants ultimately dropped

all criminal charges against Plaintiff and thus it would be inequitable for him to pay costs; (4)
Defendants were not the prevailing party on all counts, as the Court declined to exercise

jurisdiction over Plaintiff
Resp.

I.

s pending state

at2-7.) The Court addresses

court claim; and (5) Plaintiff is indigent. (R. 64, Pl.'s

each of these arguments in turn.

Whether the "other costs" sought by Defendants are recoverable
Plaintiff argues that Defendants seek costs that are not recoverable under federal law. (R.

64, Pl.'s Resp. at

2.) Plaintiff

contends that such unrecoverable costs include travel

reimbursement for Defendants' attorney ($17.00), costs for a subpoena of the alleged victim's
health records ($216.35), and costs for the production of a DVD ($407.00). (1d.) These costs are
listed under "other costs" on Defendants' bill of costs and total $640.35. (R. 48, Defs.' Bill
Costs at

of

l,14.)

Defendants initially sought fees related to travel expenses incurred by their attomey

totaling $17.00. (ld. at 14,21-22.) Defendants now concede, however, that travel expenses
incurred by counsel in traveling to and from witness depositions are not costs awarded under 28

U.S.C. $ 1920, and therefore, voluntarily withdraw $17.00 in transportation fees from their bill

of costs. (R. 65, Defs.' Reply at 2.)
Defendants seek $216.35 for costs for a subpoena of the alleged victim's health records.
(R. 48, Defs.' Bill of Costs at 14,17.) Specifically, Defendants served a subpoena on Little
Company of Mary Hospital for the victim's medical records and now seek the costs associated

with receiving copies of those records. (Id. at 17; R. 65, Defs.' Reply at2-3.) Defendants
contend that the costs for these records were a "necessary expense" and should be awarded. (R.
65, Defs.' Reply at 3.)
The prevailing party may recover costs for copies of materials that were "necessarily
obtained for use in the case." 28 U.S.C. $ 1920(4). This includes costs for copies related to

discovery and copies of pleadings, motions, and memoranda submitted to the court. Mcllveen,

910 F.2d at 1584; Swan Lake Holdings, LLC v. Yamaha Golf-Car Co., No. 3:09-CV-228,2011

WL 1869389, at *3 (N.D. Ind. May 13,20ll); Nilssen v. Osram Slyvania,.Lzc., No. 01 C 3585,
2007 WL257711, at*6 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 23,2007). Specifically at issue here, 'o[a]warding the
costs of obtaining copies of medical records necessary for a case is 'clearly allowable' in the

Seventh Circuit." Gillman v. Crown Equip. Corp., No. 95 C 1914,1996 WL 556706, at*5

(N.D. Ill. Sept. 26, 1996) (citing Finchum v. Ford Motor Co., 57 F .3d 526, 534 (7th Cir. 1995);
M.T. Bonk Co. v. Milton Bradley Co., 945 F .2d 1404,

l4l0 (7th Cir. 1991)); see also Lewis v.

City of Chi., No. 04 C 6050, 2012WL 6720411, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 21,2012) (Castillo, J.)
(f,rnding that "copy fees are properly recoverable [if] they [are] paid to medical service providers

for medical records that [are] necessary to the case"); Dishman v. Cleary,279 F.R.D. 460,465

(N.D. Ill.2012) (finding that the fees paid to

a hospital

costs for records which were reasonably necessary at

for medical records were 'orecoverable as

trial").

Defendants contend that the medical records were used to support their Local Rule 56.1
Statement of Facts for their motion for summary judgment. (R. 65, Defs.' Reply at 3; R. 29,

Defs.' Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Facts

lTtT

11, 19-23,54.) Additionally, Defendants maintain

that Detective Fizer relied on these records to determine that he had probable cause to arrest

Plaintiff. (R. 65, Defs.' Reply at 3.)

Because the medical records were used to support

Defendants' assertion that Detective Fizer had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff, this Court finds
that the copies of those records were reasonably necessary to the case. Defendants have
submitted an invoice from a medical service provider that sufficiently details the fees and costs

for copying the medical records. (R. 48, Defs.' Bill of Costs at 17.) Accordingly, the Court
awards Defendants $216.35 for photocopies of the alleged victim's medical records.

Defendants additionally seek $407.00 for costs related to the production of a media DVD.

(R. 48, Defs.' Bill of Costs at 14, 19.) Specially, Defendants paid $407.00 to Cision U.S., Inc.
for the production of a DVD containing media coverage of Plaintiff s arrest. (Id. at 19.)
Defendants claim that because 'othe news broadcasts of [Plaintiff s] arrest were a critical
component of his damages," they "subpoenaed copies of these news broadcasts in order to
determine whether they existed and what information they actually contained." (R. 65, Defs.'

Reply at 3.) Defendants argue that this was a necessary expense and should be allowed as a
recoverable cost for "printing" under 28 U.S.C. $ 1920(3). (1d )
Defendants fail to demonstrate how the production of a DVD containing media coverage
can be classified as

"printing" under Section 1920(3). Printing under Section 1920(3) generally

refers to printing documents

.

See Massudo v. Panda

Express,1rc., No. 12 CY 9683, 2014 WL

748723, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 15,2014); Dishman,279 F.R.D. at469 (allowing the costs for

printing

a paper copy

of each docket entry). Media coverage does not fall into any of the six

categories of recoverable costs under Section 1920. Defendants do not cite to any case law
where courts have awarded costs to the prevailing party for television news coverage that was
copied onto a DVD, and the Court did not find any authority to support awarding such costs.
Thus, the Court declines to award DVD production costs in the amount of $407.00 to
Defendants.

Accordingly, this Court finds that $424.00 of Defendants' "other costs" are not
recoverable and

II.

will

be subtracted from their total costs.

Whether Defendants have requested costs in excess of what they have paid
Plaintiff argues that Defendants seek subpoena and deposition costs in excess of what the

invoices attached to their bill of costs state. (R. 64, Pl.'s Resp. at 2.) Defendants concede that

some of the charges listed on the invoices do not match the costs outlined in their

bill of

costs.

(R. 65, Defs.' Reply at 4.) Specifically, the invoices from LaSalle Process Servers for subpoena
fees totals $300.00, but the amount listed by Defendants is $307.00; the invoice for the

deposition transcript of Officer Shannon totals S187.50, but Defendants requested $253.45; the

invoices for the deposition transcript of Vincent Waller total $315.41, but the amount listed by
Defendants is $377.55; the invoices for the deposition transcript of Stephanie Williams total
$364.90, but Defendants requested $414.05; the invoice for the deposition transcript of Dr.
Husseni totals $420.00, but the amount listed by Defendants is $516.25; and the invoice for the

deposition transcript of Martha Kross totals $393.00, but Defendants requested $483.40. (R. 48,

Defs.' Bill of Costs at 13, 15-16, 24,27,28,30-32.) In all, Defendants concede to a
miscalculation in the amount of $370.89, which will be subtracted from the total amount of their

costs. (R. 65, Defs.' Reply at 4.)
Defendants argue that their deposition expenses'owere reasonably necessary for the
defense of their case" because they needed copies of the deposition transcripts to prepare their

motion for summary judgment. (R. 65, Defs.' Reply at3-4.) Plaintiff does not dispute the
remaining costs of the deposition transcripts and the Court finds that the costs were both
reasonable and necessary to the

litigation.

See

Little,514 F.3d at702. Additionally, Plaintiff

does not dispute the remaining costs for subpoena fees and the costs for exemplification and

copies of papers; the Court finds that these costs were also reasonable and necessary to the

litigation.

III.

See id.

Whether it would be inequitable to award Defendants costs because the criminal
charges against Plaintiff were ultimately dropped
Plaintiff argues that even if costs to Defendants are recoverable, "it would be inequitable

to require Plaintiff to pay costs under the circumstances." (R. 64, Pl.'s Resp. at 3.) Specifically,

Plaintiff contends that his arrest by Detective Fizer hinged on false accusations made by an
individual diagnosed with dementia and Alzheimer's disease, and that his arrest should not have
occurred. (ld. at 4.) Plaintiff contends that as a result of his arrest, he lost his job at a state
university, lost a promotion with the National Guard, remained unemployed for 18 months, and
was ultimately forced to declare bankruptcy.

(ld.) Plaintiff

argues that all the "financial and

personal setbacks [he] suffered are directly attributable to [his] arrest by Defendant" and
emphasizes that all charges related to that arrest were ultimately dropped.

(Id.) According to

Plaintiff, Defendants "should not be rewarded for their own bad acts which led to the instant

litigation." (Id. at 5.)
The Seventh Circuit recognizes only two situations which may warrant the denial

of

costs. Mother & Father v. Cassidy,338 F.3d 704,708 (7th Cir. 2003). The first situation
involves a finding that the losing party is indigent.

Id. Plaintiffs arguments regarding

his

alleged indigence are addressed in detail in Section V below. The second situation which may
warrant the denial of costs is "misconduct by the prevailing pany that is worthy of a penalty,"
such as "calling unnecessary witnesses, raising unnecessary issues, or otherwise unnecessarily

prolonging the proceedings." Congregation of the Passion,854 F.2d at222; see also Dishman,
279 F.R.D. at 465 (quoting Collins v. United Stafes, No. 03 C 2958,2008 WL 4549303, at

*l

(N.D. Ill. Apr. 24,2008)).
Despite Plaintiff s allegations, Defendants did not engage in "bad acts" or any type

of

misconduct in this case. This Court has already found that Detective Fizer had probable cause to
arrest Plaintiff and thus did not violate

Plaintiff s Fourth Amendment rights. Bonds,7l3

F.

Supp. 2d at760-64. In making this determination, this Court noted that the fact that the alleged

victim suffered from dementia did not automatically render her accusations untrustworthy, and

Detective Fizer's knowledge of her dementia did not undermine his probable cause analysis. Id

at763. Additionally, the Court finds that Defendants have not

engaged in any of the examples

of

misconduct outlined by the Seventh Circuit. See Congregation of the Passion,854 F.2d at 222.

While the Court recognizes and sympathizes with the hardships Plaintiff and his family have
experienced as a result of his arrest, it cannot find that Defendants engaged in any type

of

misconduct that is worthy of a penalty. Accordingly, the Court will not deny Defendants their
legal right to recover court costs. See Dishman,279 F.R.D. at 465 (rejecting plaintiff s argument
that it would be inequitable to hold him responsible for costs because defendants did not engage

in misconduct in defending the case).
In an effort to avoid this result, Plaintiff argues that a court may deny costs if

"'it

would

be inequitable under all the circumstances' to tax the non-prevailing party with the burden

of

costs." (R.64,PI.'sResp.at3)(quotingUSMCorp. v.SPSTechs., Inc.,l02F.R.D. 167,172
(N.D. Ill. 1984) (finding that fraud and bad faith on the part of defendant would make it
inequitable to award costs)). Plaintiff, however, misconstrues and overly broadens the

applicability of the quotation from USM. The quotation derives from a Sixth Circuit case which
goes on to list examples of when it would be inequitable to award costs:

Examples will be found in cases where the amount of taxable costs actually
expended were unnecessary or unreasonably large under the circumstances, where
the denial of costs was in the nature of a penalty for injecting unmeritorious issues
into the case or unnecessarily prolonging the trial of the case, or where the
judgment recovered was insignificant in comparison to the amount sought and
actually amounted to a victory for the defendant.

Lichter Foundation, Inc. v. Welch,269 F .2d 142, 146 (6th Cir. 1959). None of these situations
apply to the case at hand, and unlike the defendant in USM, Defendants here have not been found

to have committed fraud or acted in bad faith. Thus, the Court finds Plaintiff
unavailing and rejects this argument for the denial of costs.

l0

s

reliance on USM

Iv.

Whether the Court needed to grant summary judgment on all counts in order for
Defendants to recover their costs
Plaintiff additionally argues that it would be inequitable to award costs to Defendants

because summary judgment was not granted on the state law malicious prosecution claim and

"[t]he majority of the costs Defendants seek . . . are for items which Defendants will be required
to use to defend against Plaintiff s malicious prosecution case in state court." (R. 64, Pl.'s Resp.
at 5.)

Under Rule 54(d), costs are awarded to the "prevailing party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(dXl).
The Seventh Circuit has defined "prevailing party" as "the party who prevails as to the

substantial part of the litigation." Testa v. Vill. of Mundelein, Ill.,89 F.3d 443, 447 (7th Cir.
1996) (citing

First Commodity Traders, Inc. v. Heinold Commodities, Inc.,766F.2d 1007,

1015

(7th Cir. 1985)); see also U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Shorenstein Realty Servs., r.P., 803 F.
Supp. 2d920,923 (N.D. Ill. 2011) ("When aparty obtains substantial relief, it prevails even if it
does not win on every

claim."). Additionally, "where there is a dismissal of an action, even

where such dismissal is involuntary and without prejudice, the defendant is the prevailing party."

First Commodity Traders,766F.2dat l0l5 (quoting 6 J. Moore, W. Taggart & J. Wicker,
Moore's Federal Practicen54.70l4l (2d ed. 1985)).
Here, Defendants are the prevailing party as this Court granted their motion for summary

judgment on Counts I and III and dismissed Count I[, Plaintiff s malicious prosecution claim,

without prejudice. Bonds,713

F

. Supp. 2d at

765-66. Given the time that has elapsed since this

Court's order granting summary judgment, Plaintiff s malicious prosecution claim may no longer
be pending in state

court. Regardless, even if the claim were still pending in state court, that

would have no effect on this Court's determination of costs because Defendants have won the
substantial part of the litigation in federal court. See Testa,89 F.3d at 447

11

.

Therefore, as the

prevailing party, Defendants are entitled to costs. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(l). The Court finds
that Plaintiff s argument that it would be inequitable to make him pay for costs while his claim is
pending in state court is conclusory and without merit. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to meet
his burden of showing that the costs are inappropriate. See Beamon,4l

V.

l

F.3d at864.

Whether Plaintiff is indigent
Finally, Plaintiff argues that it would be unreasonable to levy costs against him because

he is indigent. (R. 64, Pl.'s Resp. at

5.) Plaintiff

contends that although he is currently

employed, he and his wife are unable to pay the costs resulting from the instant litigation. (Id. at

6.) Plaintiff s wife is unemployed

and Plaintiff contends that her unemployment has

compounded the financial difficulties to him and his family.

will

(Id.) Plaintiff further

states that he

be unable to pay Defendants' costs in the future as his employment options and earning

capabilities are limited as a result of his arrest. (Id.)

A losing party's inability to pay is an appropriate factor to consider when granting or
denying taxable costs. Badillo v. Cent. Steel

& Wire Co., 717 F .2d I 160, 1 165 (7th Cir.

1983)

(citing Delta Airlines, Inc. v. Colbert,692F.2d 489,491(7th Cir. 1982)). Although a court must
be

"[m]indful of the presumption that costs

are to be awarded to the prevailing party under [Rule

54(d)], . . . this presumption may be overcome by a showing of indigency." Id.(intemal citation
omitted). Nonetheless, "indigence does not automatically excuse the losing party from paying
the prevailing party's costs." Rivera,469 F.3d at 635. When ruling on a losing party's assertion
that he is indigent and therefore unable to pay the prevailing party's costs, courts engage in a

two-step analysis. 1d. First, the Court "must make a threshold factual finding that the losing
party is 'incapable of paying the court-imposed costs at this time or in the future."' 1d. (quoting

McGill v. Faulkner,

18 F.3d 456,459 (7th

Cir. 1994)). The losing party bears the burden of

t2

providing the Court with "sufficient documentation to support such a finding." /d. (quoting
Chapman v. Al Transport,229 F.3d 1012, 1039 (1lth Cir. 2000)). "This documentation should

include evidence in the form of an affidavit or other documentary evidence of income and assets,
as

well as a schedule of expenses." Id. Second, the Court "should consider the amount of costs,

the good faith of the losing party, and the closeness and difficulty of the issues raised by a case
when using its discretion to deny costs."

Id.

The Seventh Circuit has made clear "that the

[indigence] exception is a narrow one." Id. at 636.

In support of his indigence claim, Plaintiff submitted an affidavit dated September 10,
2010, attesting that, 'odue to [his] arrest [he] lost [his] job with the lllinois National Guard" and

"remained unemployed for approximately 18 months." (R. 64-1, Ex. A., Pl.'s Aff. at 2.)

Plaintiff attests that due to his employment situation, "[his] wife and [he] were forced to declare
bankruptcy

:' (iA, and that his wife is also currently unemploye

d, (id. at 3). Plaintiff also attests

that "as a result of [his] arrest and [the] charges on [his] record, [his] prospects for career
advancement in the U.S. Armed Services are severely limited." (/d.) Plaintiff concedes that

"[he] [is] currently stationed in Kuwait with the U.S. Armed Services," (iA, but provides no
details as to his position or salary. Additionally, Plaintiff submitted a Chapter 13 Statement

of

Current Monthly Income ("Chapter 13 Statement") dated October 9,2009, outlining his and his

wife's income for a six-month period from April 2009 to September 2009. (R. 64-2, Ex. B, Ch.

l3 Statement.)r
Plaintiff is currently employed with the U.S. Armed Services and while he does not
provide specific details about his employment, the Court assumes he is receiving a salary. His

I

The Court is mindful of the time that has passed since Plaintiff filed his response to
Defendant's bill of costs with these attached exhibits, and makes its determination of Plaintiff s
current financial status for purposes of this bill of costs using the documents Plaintiff provided
then.
13

wife is unemployed but she testified in her deposition on February 19,2010, that she is receiving
unemployment compensation in the amount of $1,118.00 every two weeks, and Plaintiff has not
indicated that these payments have stopped. (R. 65-1, Ex. 2,Zephye Myers-Bond Dep. at26:05-

09). Additionally, Plaintiff testified in his deposition on December 17,2009, that he owns
property from which he is receiving rental income in the amount of $1,845.00 every month, and
he has not indicated that he has stopped collecting this rental income. (R. 65-1, Ex. 1, Pl.'s Dep.

at 52:14-18; see alsoPt.64-2,F,x. B, Ch.

l3

Statement at

8-9.) Taking all this information into

account, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff is currently indigent and incapable of paying costs.
See

Falcon v. City of Chi., No. 98 C 4028,2000 WL 1231403, at

*l

Q.{.D.

Ill. Aug. 28,2000)

("the losing party must demonstrate actual indigency, not merely limited financial resources").
Further, the fact that Plaintiff has not provided any statements of current assets and expenses

only serves to weaken his indigency argument.

See

Rivera, 469 F.3d at 635 ("Requiring a non-

prevailing party to provide information about both income/assets and expenses will ensure that

district courts have clear proof of the non-prevailing party's dire financial circumstances.");

see

also Lewis,2012 WL 672041 1, at *3 (finding that because plaintiff did not provide a schedule

of

expenses or any other documentary evidence of her income or assets, she failed to provide

sufficient documentation to support her indigency claim).

Additionally, although Plaintiff s Chapter 13 Statement highlights a cash flow disparity
in his household for the six months in2009, it does not offer evidence that either Plaintiff or his

wife will be unable to earn income in the future.

See

McGill,

18 F.3d at 459-60

(affirming the

district court's taxation of costs on the non-prevailing plaintiff, a state prisoner, who claimed he
was indigent because the Seventh Circuit was "not convinced on the record that [the plaintiffl

will not ever be able to pay the order imposing costs"); Denson v. Ne. Ill. Reg'l Commuter

14

R.R.

Corp.,No.00 C2984,2003 WL 21506946, at *l (N.D. Ill. June,27,2003) (awarding costs even
though the plaintiff was indigent because she did not demonstrate an inability to pay costs in the

future). Plaintiff attests in his affidavit that his future earning potential will be "severely limited"
as a result of his arrest, but he fails to provide any evidence to support this

64-l,Ex. A, Pl.'s Aff.

at

contention. (See R.

3.) Plaintiff s affidavit, by itself, is insufficient to prove

an inability to

pay future costs. See Fairley v. Andrews, No. 03 C 5207,2008 WL 961592, at *4 Q.{.D. Ill. Apr.
8, 2008) (concluding that

plaintiff was not indigent because he had not provided the court with

sufficient documentation about his ability to pay for costs in the future, even though his affidavit
made

it clear that his household expenses were more than his present income);

see also Tumas v.

Bd. of Educ. of Lyons Twp. High Sch. Dist. No. 204, No. 06 C 1943,2008 WL 611601, at

*l

(N.D. Ill. Feb. 29,2008) (finding that plaintiff did not demonstrate actual indigency and an
inability to pay costs now or in the future where plaintiff argued that the imposition of costs
would be an extraordinary financial burden).

While the Court sympathizes with Plaintiff s circumstances, it cannot determine that
Plaintiff is indigent and unable to pay costs now or in the future on the basis of the
documentation provided. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff s request for relief from

taxation under this exception.

l5

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' bill of costs (R. 48) is GRANTED in part, and
Defendants are awarded costs in the amount of $6,252.11.

ENTERED:
Chief Judge Rub-6n Castillo
United States District Court

Dated: September/, 2014

t6