Sanchez-Soriano v. United States of America et al

Filing 178

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Clerk of Court is Directed to tax costs in the amount of $1,017.40 to the United States and in the amount of $453.60 to GEO Group, Inc., Pulaski County, Kern and Cavins. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 4/2/12. (bkl)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOSE SANCHEZ-SORIANO,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 09-cv-500-JPG-PMF

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Jose Sanchez-Soriano’s objections (Docs.
171 & 172) to the bills of costs filed by defendant United States of America (Doc. 167) and by
defendants GEO Group, Inc., Pulaski County, Randy Kern and Cliff Cavins (Doc. 169). The
United States requests taxation of costs in the amount of $2,543.50, and defendants GEO Group,
Inc., Pulaski County, Kern and Cavins request taxation of costs in the amount of $1,134.00.
Sanchez-Soriano does not take issue with the propriety of the costs requested but instead asks the
Court to exercise its discretion to decline to award costs.

Ordinarily the Clerk of Court taxes costs in favor of the prevailing party on 14 days’
notice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). The Court may then review the Clerk’s action within the next
7 days. Id. The Court presumes that a prevailing party is entitled to costs as a matter of course,
Krocka v. City of Chicago, 203 F.3d 507, 518 (7th Cir. 2000), but has the discretion to deny or
reduce costs where warranted, Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441-42
(1987).
A reduction or denial of costs may be appropriate where a non-prevailing party is
indigent and his suit is not frivolous. See Rivera v. City of Chi., 469 F.3d 631, 634-35 (7th Cir.
2006) (citing Badillo v. Central Steel & Wire Co., 717 F.2d 1160, 1165 (7th Cir. 1983)). In

deciding whether to hold an indigent party liable for costs, the Court should examine the party’s
income, assets and expenses and make a threshold finding whether the losing party is incapable
of paying the costs at the present time or in the future. Rivera, 469 F.3d at 635. The Court
should also 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
exception to the cost-shifting presumption for indigent losing parties is narrow, and the burden
is on the losing party to show he fits within the exception. Id. at 636. If the Court reduces or
denies costs, it must explain its decision. Krocka, 203 F.3d at 518.
Sanchez-Soriano points to the great economic burden taxation of costs would be on him.
He is a paraplegic paralyzed from the chest down, suffers from health complications related to his
paralysis, is effectively unemployable for the rest of his life and has a limited command of the
English language. Indeed, the documentation submitted in support of Sanchez-Soriano’s recent
motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis demonstrates his indigency and the
unlikelihood he will be able to pay the costs now or in the future. However, the Court notes that,
this litigation was prolonged because of Sanchez-Soriano’s repeated efforts to amend his
complaint to finally settle on the claims he wanted to pursue, even late into the litigation. The
circumstances behind the efforts at amendment led the Court to find bad faith and/or a dilatory
motive (Docs. 120 & 135). It is telling that the operative pleading in this case was the fourth
amended complaint, and Sanchez-Soriano would have liked to have filed an even later one (see
Doc. 112, Motion for Leave to File Fifth Amended Complaint) had the Court allowed it. His
shifting legal theories interfered with the efforts of some defendants to formulate their defenses,
complete discovery and bring the litigation to a timely conclusion (Doc. 135).
The Court believes these circumstances warrant a reduction in the taxation of costs.

2

Despite Sanchez-Soriano’s physical and economic condition, he still must bear some
responsibility for the defendants’ burden in defending a suit which he unduly prolonged and in
which he did not prevail. This is particularly true where two of the defendants are government
bodies, so their expenses if not paid by Sanchez-Soriano will be effectively paid by taxpayers.
Burroughs v. Hills, 741 F.2d 1525, 1538 (7th Cir. 1984) (Posner, J., concurring). Nevertheless, he
is indigent with very little chance of escaping that state.
For these reasons, the Court will use its discretion to reduce but not eliminate the taxation
of costs. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to tax costs in the amount of $1,017.40 to the United
States and in the amount of $453.60 to GEO Group, Inc., Pulaski County, Kern and Cavins.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 2, 2012
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

3