James v. Baldwin et al

Filing 135

ORDER OVERRULING 134 Objection filed by Plaintiff Ned James, 3rd to 131 Bill of Costs filed by Defendants Rodney Barker and Jeffrey Gardiner. The Court ORDERS an award of costs in the amount of $658.70 for Defendants Barker and Gardiner. The Clerk of Court shall tax costs in these amounts against Plaintiff. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Beatty on 7/13/2022. (klh2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
NED JAMES, III,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JOHN BALDWIN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:17-CV-623-MAB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
BEATTY, Magistrate Judge:
This matter is currently before the Court on the Bill of Costs filed by Defendants
Rodney Barker and Jeffrey Gardiner (Doc. 131) and Plaintiff’s objections thereto (Doc.
134). For the reasons explained below, Plaintiff’s objections are overruled and Defendants
are awarded their costs.
Plaintiff Ned James, an inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections, filed this
lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging his constitutional rights were violated while
he was incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center. Specifically, he alleged that
correctional officer Jeffrey Gardiner sexually assaulted him while correctional officer
Rodney Barker stood by and failed to intervene, and both Gardiner and Barker refused
his request for medical attention following the assault. Defendants moved for summary
judgment and it was granted for Barker on Plaintiff’s claims for failure to protect and
assault and battery (Doc. 80). The case proceeded to trial on Plaintiff’s claims for excessive
force and assault and battery against Gardiner and his claim for deliberate indifference
Page 1 of 4

against Gardiner and Barker. The jury found in favor of Defendants on all counts (Doc.
123), and judgment was entered accordingly on June 24, 2021 (Doc. 127).
Defendants Gardiner and Barker filed their Bill of Costs on October 27, 2021,
seeking costs in the amount of $658.70 for the transcript fee and court reporter fees
associated with taking Plaintiff’s deposition (Doc. 131). The Clerk of Court notified
Plaintiff that any objections to the Bill of Costs had to be filed by November 11, 2021 (Doc.
132). When Plaintiff did not file any objections by the deadline, the Clerk taxed costs to
Plaintiff in the amount of $658.70 on November 19, 2021 (Doc. 133). Three days later,
Plaintiff filed his objections (Doc. 134), which the Court construes as a motion to review
the Clerk of Court’s decision to tax costs to Plaintiff. See FED. R. CIV. P. 54(d)(1) (“The clerk
may tax costs on 14 days' notice. On motion served within the next 7 days, the court may
review the clerk's action.”)
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. There is a “strong
presumption that the prevailing party will recover costs . . . .” Weeks v. Samsung Heavy
Indus. Co., 126 F.3d 926, 945 (7th Cir. 1997); accord Lange v. City of Oconto, 28 F.4th 825, 845
(7th Cir. 2022); Rivera v. City of Chicago, 469 F.3d 631, 634 (7th Cir. 2006). The burden is on
the non-prevailing party to overcome this presumption by making “an affirmative
showing that taxed costs are not appropriate.” Lange, 28 F.4th at 845 (citation omitted);
Rivera, 469 F.3d at 636. “This presumption in favor of awarding costs ‘is difficult to
overcome’; therefore, ‘the court must award costs unless it states good reasons for
Page 2 of 4

denying them.’” Lange, 28 F.4th at 845 (quoting Weeks, 126 F.3d at 645). The decision of
whether and to what extent the prevailing party may be awarded costs is committed to
the district court’s discretion. Lange, 28 F.4th at 846; Weeks 126 F.3d at 945.
Plaintiff’s motion is very brief and he makes only one argument: that he should
not be responsible for Defendants’ costs because “he never requested for legal discovery
to be tender[ed] on paper” and it was defense counsels’ “decision to put it on paper”
(Doc. 134). The Court is unpersuaded by this argument. Depositions are one of the
primary methods of conducting discovery, and the parties in a lawsuit are permitted to
depose one another. See FED. R. CIV. P. 30. Making a record of the deposition in a written
transcript and/or by video is essential. Deposition costs are recoverable under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1920. See also Weeks, 126 F.3d at 945. The Court has no reason to doubt that it was
necessary for Defendants to depose Plaintiff in order to properly defend themselves
against his claims. Plaintiff has not demonstrated otherwise.1
CONCLUSION
The Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objection to costs and ORDERS an award of
costs in the amount of $658.70 for Defendants Barker and Gardiner. The Clerk of Court
shall tax costs in these amounts against Plaintiff.

The Court notes that the losing party may be excused from paying the prevailing party’s costs if the losing
party is indigent. Rivera v. City of Chicago, 469 F.3d 631, 634–35 (7th Cir. 2006). In this instance, Plaintiff did
not make any argument that he should not have to pay costs associated with the litigation because he is
indigent, nor did he provide any documentation that could support a claim of indigency (see Doc. 134).
Consequently, the Court declines to address the issue sua sponte.
Page 3 of 4
1

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 13, 2022
s/ Mark A. Beatty
MARK A. BEATTY
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 4 of 4