Woods v. Obaisi et al
Filing
241
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order written by the Honorable Gary Feinerman on 11/19/2021.Mailed notice.(jlj, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
JOHNNIE WOODS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
GHALIAH OBAISI, Independent Executor of the Estate
of Saleh Obaisi, and DR. MATTHEW RANZER,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
17 C 6828
Judge Gary Feinerman
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Johnnie Woods, an Illinois prisoner, brought this pro se suit against Dr. Saleh Obaisi and
Dr. Matthew Ranzer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming deliberate indifference to his serious
medical needs during his confinement at Stateville Correctional Center. Doc. 53. (After
Obaisi’s death, the court substituted his estate’s executor as defendant. Doc. 33.) The court
granted summary judgment to Obaisi on exhaustion grounds, except for Woods’s claims that
Obaisi was deliberately indifferent in denying his request for a second opinion following plastic
surgery on his heel and in directing that his ACE bandages be removed. Docs. 162-163 (reported
at 2020 WL 1467402 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 26, 2020)). The court later granted summary judgment to
Ranzer on the ground that he was not a state actor for purposes of § 1983. Docs. 182-183
(reported at 2020 WL 4365643 (N.D. Ill. July 30, 2020)). The court then granted summary
judgment to Obaisi on the sole remaining count against him, Docs. 198-199 (reported at 2021
WL 1121121 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 24, 2021)), and entered judgment, Doc. 200.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920, Defendants
seek some $1,350 in costs. Doc. 201. Woods argues that he is indigent and therefore should not
be subjected to a cost award. Docs. 209, 214.
1
A prevailing party “presumptively receives the costs of litigation and it is the losing
party’s burden to overcome this presumption.” Johnson v. Target Corp., 487 F. App’x 298, 301
(7th Cir. 2012). But “it is within the discretion of the district court to consider a plaintiff’s
indigenc[e] in denying costs under Rule 54(d).” Rivera v. City of Chicago, 469 F.3d 631, 634
(7th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Rivera directs district courts to undertake a
two-step analysis when presented with a claim of indigence:
First, the district 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. The burden is on the losing party to provide the district court with
sufficient documentation to support such a finding. This documentation
should include evidence in the form of an affidavit or other documentary
evidence of both income and assets, as well as a schedule of expenses.
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. Moreover, it will
limit any incentive for litigants of modest means to portray themselves as
indigent.
Second, the district 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. No one factor is
determinative, but the district court should provide an explanation for its
decision to award or deny costs.
Id. at 635-36 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
As for the first step, Woods is 43 years old and currently imprisoned at Pinckneyville
Correctional Center. See Illinois Department of Corrections Offender Search for Johnny Woods,
B73276, available at https://www2.illinois.gov/idoc/offender/pages/inmatesearch.aspx (last
visited Nov. 19, 2021). He has been incarcerated since 2002, and his release date is in 2059,
ibid., meaning that he is highly unlikely to have much, if any, of a post-prison life.
This court granted Woods leave to proceed in forma pauperis in October 2017. Doc. 7.
The court recently granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Doc. 225. As
2
Woods’s most recent trust fund account statement reflects, his monthly income is modest.
Doc. 215 at 4.
The unfortunate reality is that Woods’s income-generating capabilities are and will
continue to be severely limited while he is imprisoned, and that they are not likely to materially
improve, as he is serving out what may effectively turn out to be a life sentence or close to a life
sentence. Woods does receive a modest amount of money from outside sources, but those sums
do not materially improve his financial situation. Given these circumstances, Woods has
sufficiently established that he is “incapable of paying the court-imposed costs at this time or in
the future.” Rivera, 469 F.3d at 635 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Mathis v.
Carter, 2017 WL 2243040 (N.D. Ill. May 23, 2017) (declining to assess costs against a losing
party who was incarcerated and indigent); Shultz v. Dart, 2016 WL 3227276 (N.D. Ill. June 13,
2016) (same).
As for the second step of the analysis, while Defendants’ requested costs are not terribly
high, they still would pose a substantial hardship to Woods, whose present income is trivial and
who is highly unlikely to have any post-incarceration income-generating capabilities. It is true
that Defendants were granted summary judgment on Woods’s claims. But his case was not
utterly frivolous, and he appears to have brought the suit in good faith.
For these reasons, the court denies Defendants’ requests for costs.
November 19, 2021
___________________________________
United States District Judge
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?