Stewart v. Lashbrook et al

Filing 170

ORDER denying 159 Bill of Costs. Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 5/3/2021. (dhg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JAVAR STEWART,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:16-CV-1321-NJR

JACQUELINE LASHBROOK,
MICHAEL D. SCOTT, KIMBERLY
FERRARI, and WEXFORD HEALTH
SOURCES, INC.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
Pending before the Court is a Bill of Costs filed by Defendant Jacqueline Lashbrook
(Doc. 158) and an Objection to that Bill filed by Plaintiff Javar Stewart (Doc. 166).
Lashbrook filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on June 5, 2020 (Doc. 134). That
motion was granted, and Lashbrook was dismissed from this action on February 8, 2021
(Doc. 155). Lashbrook filed her Bill of Costs on February 22, 2021, seeking $1,558.55 in
costs for fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts obtained for use in this
action (Doc. 159).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) provides that costs other than attorney’s fees
“should be allowed to the prevailing party.” A district court retains discretion, however,
in whether to order the losing party to pay costs. Rivera v. City of Chicago, 469 F.3d 631,
634 (7th Cir. 2006). In general, when considering whether to tax costs against a losing
party, the Court considers (1) whether the cost is recoverable, and (2) whether the amount

Page 1 of 2

assessed is reasonable. Majeske v. City of Chicago, 218 F.3d 816, 824 (7th Cir. 2000). A Court
may consider a party’s indigence in assessing whether costs are reasonable. Rivera, 469
F.3d at 634. In reviewing indigence, a district court must first “make a threshold factual
finding that the losing party is incapable of paying the court-imposed costs at this time
or in the future” and then “consider 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
(quotations omitted).
Here, Stewart is proceeding in forma pauperis, he has been incarcerated since 2001
and has negligible income. He is not due for release until at least 2029, and thus his
financial situation is unlikely to change significantly in the near future. In sum, he
appears incapable of paying the costs requested. The Court further notes that his action
here was not frivolous, and that while the Court did decide to grant Lashbrook’s Motion
for Summary Judgment, that required a lengthy assessment of complex facts.
Accordingly, based on Stewart’s indigence, the Court DENIES the Bill of Costs in
its entirety (Doc. 158).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 3, 2021
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge

Page 2 of 2