Munson v. Gaetz et al

Filing 304

ORDER DENYING 300 Motion for Objections to Bill of Costs filed by James Munson. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Beatty on 10/6/2023. (klh2)

Case 3:11-cv-00159-MAB Document 304 Filed 10/06/23 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #4088

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JAMES MUNSON,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
DONALD GAETZ, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:11-CV-159-MAB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
BEATTY, Magistrate Judge:
This matter is currently before the Court on Plaintiff James Munson’s Motion for
Objections to Bill of Costs (Doc. 300) and Defendants’ response thereto (Doc. 303). For the
reasons explained below, the motion is denied.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff James Munson, an inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections,
originally filed this case in March 2011, asserting that a soy-based diet restricted his
religious practice in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc–1(a)(1) & (2), and caused medical issues to which doctors were
deliberately indifferent in violation of the Eighth Amendment (see Docs. 204, 217). This
case has been appealed to the Seventh Circuit twice. The first time, the Seventh Circuit
reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, finding that the court erred in
staying discovery pending resolution of a similar case in the Central District of Illinois,
and then later denying Plaintiff’s Rule 56(d) motion seeking to conduct his own discovery
Page 1 of 5

Case 3:11-cv-00159-MAB Document 304 Filed 10/06/23 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #4089

(Doc. 191-1). On remand, new counsel was recruited for Plaintiff and Plaintiff filed an
amended complaint (see Doc. 264, pp. 2–3). After the parties engaged in discovery,
Defendants once again moved for summary judgment (see id. at p. 3). Their motions were
granted and Plaintiff appealed to the Seventh Circuit for the second time (Id.; Doc. 277).
In the meantime, Defendants Magid Fahim, Adrian Feinerman, and Fe Fuentes filed a Bill
of Costs (Doc. 267), to which Plaintiff objected (Doc. 274). On July 13, 2022, the Court
entered an order overruling Plaintiff’s objection in part and awarding Defendants $268.52
in costs, which was 50% of the amount they had requested (Doc. 296).
On November 17, 2022, the Seventh Circuit issued its opinion affirming the
judgment of the district court (Doc. 298-1). That same day, the Seventh Circuit issued its
Final Judgment, which stated “The judgment of the District Court is affirmed, with costs,
in accordance with the decision of this court entered on this date.” (Doc. 298-2) (emphasis
added). See FED. R. APP. P. 39(a)(2) (“The following rules apply unless the law provides
or the court orders otherwise . . . if a judgment is affirmed, costs are taxed against the
appellant.”). Appellees Fahim, Feinerman, and Fuentes filed a Bill of Costs with the
Seventh Circuit on November 21, 2022, seeking $144.00 for the cost of printing or
otherwise reproducing their brief. Munson v. Keller, et al., 7th Cir. Case No. 21-3008, (Doc.
40). See FED. R. APP. P. 39(d)(1) (“A party who wants costs taxed must—within 14 days
after entry of judgment—file with the circuit clerk and serve an itemized and verified bill
of costs.”). Plaintiff did not file an objection to the Bill of Costs. See FED. R. APP. P. 39(d)(2)
(“Objections must be filed within 14 days after service of the bill of costs, unless the court
extends the time.”). The Seventh Circuit then issued its mandate on December 9, 2022,
Page 2 of 5

Case 3:11-cv-00159-MAB Document 304 Filed 10/06/23 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #4090

which included a Bill of Costs taxed in favor of Appellees Fahim, Feinerman, and Fuentes
in the amount of $144.00 (Doc. 298). See FED. R. APP. P. 41(a) (“[T]he mandate consists of
a certified copy of the judgment, a copy of the court's opinion, if any, and any direction
about costs.”).
Upon receiving the mandate, the Clerk of the District Court entered a “Notice re
Taxation of Costs,” which stated:
You are notified that a Bill of Costs has been filed in this action. These costs
will be adjusted and taxed by this office pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 54(d) on December 23, 2022. Objections to these costs, if any,
shall be filed on or before this date pursuant to SDIL-LR 54.2.
(Doc. 299). Plaintiff accordingly filed an objection on December 20, 2022, asking the Court
to waive the costs because he has proceeded in good faith and in forma pauperis
throughout the 10-plus years this case was litigated (Doc. 300). Defendants filed a
response in opposition (Doc. 303).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff did not specify whether he was objecting to this Court’s award of costs or
the Court of Appeals’ award of cost (see Doc. 300). To the extent it is the former, Plaintiff
simply rehashes the arguments that this Court already considered when it decided to
award Defendants 50% of the costs they sought (see Doc. 296). Plaintiff has therefore failed
to provide a persuasive reason, or any legal authority, for this Court to reconsider its
previous order imposing costs against him.
To the extent Plaintiff’s objection pertains to the Seventh Circuit’s award of costs,
it is a nonstarter. Plaintiff waived his right to challenge the Seventh Circuit’s award of
Page 3 of 5

Case 3:11-cv-00159-MAB Document 304 Filed 10/06/23 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #4091

costs by failing to file a timely objection in that court to Defendant’s bill of costs. See
McGill v. Faulkner, 18 F.3d 456, 458–59 (7th Cir. 1994); see also FED. R. APP. P. 39(d)(2)
(“Objections must be filed within 14 days after service of the bill of costs, unless the court
extends the time.”). Moreover, this Court has no authority to modify or alter the Seventh
Circuit’s award of costs. City of San Antonio, Texas v. Hotels.com, 539 U.S. ---, 141 S. Ct.
1628, 1634, 1636 (2021) (Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39 “gives discretion over the
allocation of appellate costs to the courts of appeals. . . . [D]istrict courts cannot exercise
a second layer of discretion” or “alter that allocation.”); Whitfield v. Scully, 241 F.3d 264,
274–75 (2d Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by Bruce v. Samuels, 577 U.S. 82 (2016)
(district court's refusal to modify appellate court’s award for appellate printing costs was
proper, as district court lacked authority over appellate costs not specifically mentioned
in Rule 39); Globe Indem. Co. v. Puget Sound Co., 154 F.2d 249, 251 (2d Cir. 1946) (holding
district court had no power to modify appellate court’s judgment by awarding appellate
costs that appellate court had already refused to award); Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC,
900 F. Supp. 2d 1336, 1342 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (where the Supreme Court entered a cost
award, district court had no authority to supplement that determination by awarding
additional printing or copying costs that the Supreme Court did not reimburse on its own
accord); Skeoch v. Ottley, 278 F.Supp. 314, 316 (D.V.I. 1968) (where appellate court had
entered judgment with respect to costs incurred before that court, district court lacked
the power to modify or supplement that judgment).
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Objections to Bill of Costs (Doc. 300) is
DENIED.
Page 4 of 5

Case 3:11-cv-00159-MAB Document 304 Filed 10/06/23 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #4092

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 6, 2023
s/ Mark A. Beatty
MARK A. BEATTY
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 5 of 5