Howell v. Butler et al

Filing 189

ORDER: Plaintiff's Objections (Docs. 177 and 183 ) to Defendants' Bill of Costs (Docs. 171 and 175 ) are OVERRULED. Plaintiff is ORDRED to pay the IDOC Defendants' costs in the amount of $131.33 and the Wexford Defendants' costs in the amount of $131.34. Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 11/7/2019. (nmf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LARRY HOWELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., et
al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16-cv-160-RJD

ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff Larry Howell is an inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections. His claims
in this matter were tried before a jury in September 2019, and following the Court’s Order granting
Defendants’ motion for directed verdict, judgment was entered on October 9, 2019.
Now pending before the Court is the Bill of Costs filed by Defendants Butler, Shicker,
Godinez, Tindall, Bradley, and Baldwin (“IDOC Defendants”) on October 15, 2019 (Doc. 171),
and the Bill of Costs filed by Defendants Wexford, Dr. Trost, Dr. Fuentes, and Susan Kirk
(“Wexford Defendants”) filed on October 21, 2019 (Doc. 175). The IDOC Defendants seek to
have Plaintiff pay $1,206.20 for deposition transcripts used in defending the case, and the Wexford
Defendants seek to have Plaintiff pay $1,450.30 for deposition transcripts used in defending the
case.
Plaintiff objects, citing his indigency and asserting Defendants failed to provide detailed
documentation justifying their bill. Plaintiff also complains that he was not the prevailing party
and he should not be responsible for any bills Defendants incurred in litigating this matter (Docs.
177 and 183). In response to Plaintiff’s first objection (Doc. 177), the Court ordered Plaintiff to
Page 1 of 3

submit his most recent trust fund account statement. Plaintiff submitted his trust fund account
statement on November 5, 2019, which reflected a balance of $1,313.33 as of October 21, 2019
(Doc. 182).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides that “costs — other than attorney’s fees
— should be allowed to the prevailing party” unless a federal statute, the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, or a court order provides otherwise. Recoverable costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920
include: (1) 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 of special
interpretation services. 28 U.S.C. § 1920(1)-(6). “The rule provides a presumption that the
losing party will pay costs but grants the court discretion to direct otherwise.” Rivera v. City of
Chicago, 469 F.3d 631, 634 (7th Cir. 2006).
The denial of costs may be warranted if the losing party is indigent and has no ability to
pay. Id. To deny a bill of costs on the grounds of indigence, “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.’” Id. at 635 (quoting McGill v. Faulkner, 18 F.3d 456, 460 (7th Cir.
1994)).

“The burden is on the losing party to provide the district court with sufficient

documentation to support such a finding.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). Next, 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.” Id.
Plaintiff was granted pauper status when this action commenced, and he has been
Page 2 of 3

continuously incarcerated throughout the course of this litigation (see Doc. 5). However, despite
his pauper status, Plaintiff’s current trust fund account balance exceeds $1,000. The Court notes
a portion of this amount seems attributable to a $750.00 settlement concerning another case, and
Plaintiff indicates he does not expect additional money in the future aside from receipt of deposits
from family, friends, and for state pay. Based on a review of the record, the Court cannot find
that Plaintiff is incapable of paying court-imposed costs in this case.
The Court also finds that this action was not frivolous and involved important constitutional
rights under the Eighth Amendment. The Court believes Plaintiff’s pursuit of this action was in
good faith even though he did not prevail, but that he should not be completely relieved of the
obligation to pay Defendants’ costs.
For these reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objection to costs, but will reduce
the amount of costs to $262.67. This amount represents 20% of Plaintiff’s trust fund account
balance in October 2019 and is consistent with the Court’s approach for its collection of filing fees
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The Court ORDERS an award of costs in the total amount of
$131.33 to the IDOC Defendants and an award of costs in the total amount of $131.34 to the
Wexford Defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 7, 2019
s/ Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 3 of 3