Walton v. Scott et al

Filing 58

ORDER DENYING Defendants' Bill of Costs (Doc. 55 ). Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 4/14/2020. (mah)

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

ROBERT WALTON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL SCOTT and
ANGEL RECTOR,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17-cv-664-SMY

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Plaintiff Robert Walton, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”), filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming his constitutional rights were
violated while he was incarcerated at Pinckneyville Correctional Center. Specifically, he alleged
that medical personnel at Pinckneyville failed to adequately treat his inguinal hernia. The Court
ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants (Doc. 53). Now pending before the
Court is Defendants’ Bill of Costs (Doc. 55) to which Plaintiff has objected (Doc. 57). 1 For the
following reasons, the Bill of Costs is DENIED.
Defendants’ Bill of Costs seeks reimbursement of $338.50 for costs incurred taking
Plaintiff’s deposition. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), “[u]nless a federal
statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs – other than attorney's fees – should

1

Plaintiff generally objects to having to pay additional money for filing a lawsuit to redress the alleged subpar medical
treatment he has received while incarcerated.

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 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).
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. If the court makes a threshold finding of indigence, it must 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 635-36.
In this case, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on July 14, 2017 (Doc.
4), which this court granted on July 21, 2017 (Doc. 5). The affidavit filed along with the IFP
motion reveals that Plaintiff earns $14 per month in income from his prison job. Given Plaintiff’s

ongoing incarceration, there is no reasonable basis to conclude that his financial condition has
changed in any meaningful way since his IFP motion was granted. Thus, the affidavits and Trust
Fund account statement that Plaintiff filed in 2017 to support his IFP status sufficiently establish
that he is indeed indigent and incapable of paying the requested costs now or in the future.
While Plaintiff was unsuccessful on his claims against Defendants, the Court finds that his
claims were not frivolous; he had a good faith basis for bringing and prosecuting his lawsuit.
Accordingly, Defendants’ Bill of Costs (Doc. 55) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 14, 2020

STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge