Watson v. Dodd et al

Filing 142

ORDER SUSTAINS 141 Objection filed by Kenneth Watson and DENIES 139 Bill of Costs filed by Sandy McCain. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gilbert C. Sison on 2/28/2020. (klh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

KENNETH WATSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DANIEL DODD, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:16-CV-1217-GCS

MEMORANDUM and ORDER
SISON, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff Kenneth Watson, an inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections,
filed this lawsuit in November 2016 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Defendants
violated his constitutional rights. (Doc. 1). On February 28, 2020, the Court granted
summary judgment and dismissed without prejudice Watson’s case based on Heck v.
Humphrey and its progeny. (Doc. 135). Judgment was entered on March 2, 2020. (Doc.
136).
Now pending before the Court is the Bill of Costs filed by Defendant Sandra
McCain on April 13, 2020, seeking $1,708.45. (Doc. 139). On April 27, 2020, Watson filed
timely objections. (Doc. 141). Watson asserts he should not be required to pay the costs,
as he was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, he has been laid off for over a month as
a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and has no income, and that his claims were not
frivolous.

Page 1 of 3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 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. FED. R. CIV. PROC.
54(d)(1). “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, however, if the losing party is indigent and
has no ability to pay. See Rivera, 469 F.3d at 634. See also Mother and Father v. Cassidy, 338
F.3d 704, 708 (7th Cir. 2003). 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, 459 (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.
Here, Watson was granted pauper status when this action commenced, and he was
incarcerated throughout most of the course of this litigation. Accordingly, the Court finds
that Watson is incapable of paying Defendant’s costs at this time. Furthermore, given that
Watson has been laid off of work due to Covid-19, the Court finds that Watson is
incapable of paying the costs at any time in the near future.

Page 2 of 3

Turning to the amount of the costs, Defendant McCain seeks a total of $1,708.45.
That sum, while not astronomical, is quite substantial to a former prisoner who was
proceeding in forma pauperis and now currently is unemployed. Furthermore, Watson
pursued this action in good faith, and that the matter presented difficult and complex
issues relating to Watson’s treatment and medical care while incarcerated.
Accordingly, the Court SUSTAINS Watson’s objection (Doc. 141) and DENIES
Defendant McCain’s Bill of Costs (Doc. 139).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 28, 2020.

Digitally signed
by Judge Sison
Date:
2020.04.28
09:36:18 -05'00'

____________________________
GILBERT C. SISON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 3 of 3