Daniels v. Mezo et al

Filing 210

ORDER DENYING 198 Bill of Costs filed by Kevin E. Reichert; DENYING 208 MOTION for Reconsideration re 204 Order; and, MOOTING 209 MOTION for status filed by Darrian Daniels. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 4/2/2019. (sgp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

DARRIAN DANIELS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
THOMAS T. MEZO, SHANA BEBOUT,
and KEVIN E. REICHERT,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14-CV-1058-SMY-RJD

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Bill of Costs (Doc. 198) to which
Plaintiff has objected (Doc. 207). Also pending are Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration (Doc.
208) and for status (Doc. 209).
Background
At the time of the events relevant to this case, Plaintiff Darrian Daniels was housed at
Menard Correctional Center where Defendants were employed as correctional staff. He filed a
Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment rights. He
was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 9) and was recruited counsel (Doc. 63). After
a two-day trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor on Defendants and against Plaintiff on his claims
of excessive force and failure to protect. Judgment was entered on December 5, 2018 (Doc. 195).
Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff’s appointed counsel was permitted to withdraw pursuant to Local Rules
83.1(g) and 83.10.
Defendants’ Bill of Costs seeks reimbursement of $1,382.54 in costs incurred in taking 8
depositions, including Plaintiff’s, Defendants’, and witnesses William Spiller, Susan M. Hill,
Page 1 of 4

Gwyneth Troyer, and Marcus Hunter. For his objection, Plaintiff states that $1,382,54 is a
significant sum and that his only income while incarcerated is from family. Plaintiff did not
attached an updated trust fund account summary supporting his claim that he is currently indigent.
However, an affidavit filed along with the Complaint reveals that Plaintiff has no income (Doc. 2)
and that the only credit to his Trust Fund account for a 6 month period was $100.00 (Doc. 8).
For his Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Order releasing
his recruited counsel from further representing him in this matter. Finally, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Status states that he did not receive a copy of his objections to the Bill of Costs and that he is
otherwise being abused by staff at the Menard Correctional Center.
Discussion
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides that “[u]nless a federal statute, these
rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs – other than attorney's fees – should be allowed to
the prevailing party.” Ordinarily the Clerk of Court taxes costs in favor of the prevailing party on
14 days’ notice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). Those costs may include:
(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal; (2) Fees for printed and 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 under section 1923 of this title; (6) Compensation of court appointed
experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of
special interpretation services under section 1828 of this title.
28 U.S.C. § 1920. The Court presumes that a prevailing party is entitled to costs as a matter of
course but has the discretion to deny or reduce costs where warranted – including based on the
indigency of the non-prevailing party. Krocka v. City of Chicago, 203 F.3d 507, 518 (7th Cir.
2000); Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441-42 (1987).

Page 2 of 4

To deny a bill of costs on the grounds of indigency, “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.’” Rivera v. City of Chi., 469 F.3d 631, 635 (7th Cir. 2006) (quoting
McGill v. Faulkner, 18 F.3d 456, 459 (7th Cir. 1994)). The losing party carries the burden of
providing the court with “sufficient documentation to support such a finding.” Rivera, 469 F.3d
at 635 (internal quotations omitted). “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.” Id. After a threshold finding of indigence, the district court then considers “the amount
of costs, the good faith of the losing party, and the closeness and difficulty of the issues raised by
a case.” Id. at 635-36.
In this case, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on October 1, 2014 (Doc.
2), which this Court granted on October 15, 2014 (Doc. 9).

Given Plaintiff’s ongoing

incarceration, there is no reasonable basis to conclude that his financial condition has changed in
any meaningful way in the last four-and-a-half years. Thus, the affidavits and Trust Fund Account
Statement that Plaintiff filed in 2014 to support his IFP status sufficiently establish that he is
indeed indigent and incapable of paying the requested costs now or in the future.
Additionally, although Plaintiff was unsuccessful on his claims against Defendants, his
claims were not frivolous. Plaintiff had a good faith basis for bringing and prosecuting his lawsuit.
Accordingly, Defendant’s Bill of Costs (Doc. 198) is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 208) is DENIED. The Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure do not recognize “Motions to Reconsider.” Plaintiff has offered no reason why this
Court should reconsider its Order releasing his recruited counsel from further representation as
outlined in Local Rule 83.10.

Page 3 of 4

Finally, Plaintiff’s Motion for Status (Doc. 209) is MOOT in light of the above rulings.
To the extent that Plaintiff believes that his rights are being violated by employees at Menard
Correctional Center, he should seek relief through the prison’s administrative process or by filing
an additional lawsuit. Plaintiff cannot seek such relief through a Motion for Status in a case in
which judgment has been entered.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 2, 2019

STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

Page 4 of 4