Montgomery v. Centralia Correctional Center et al

Filing 61

ORDER GRANTING in part and DENYING in part 58 Defendant's bill of costs consistent with the attached Memorandum and Order. The Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections 60 , but reduces the amount of costs by 20% of the total amount requested. The Court ORDERS an award of costs in the total amount of $103.66. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to tax costs in this amount against Plaintiff. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Beatty on 4/12/2021. (spl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LARRY MONTGOMERY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
CENTRALIA CORRECTIONAL
CENTER, ET AL.,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:17 -CV-00666 -MAB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
BEATTY, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff Larry Montgomery, an inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections,
filed this lawsuit in pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging multiple Defendants violated
his constitutional rights (Doc. 1). Defendant Robert Mueller (the remaining Defendant

after the Court’s threshold review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A) filed a motion for

summary judgment on June 3, 2019 (Docs. 41, 42). The motion was granted on October 2,
2020 and the case was closed the same day (Docs. 56, 57).
Now pending before the Court is Defendant’s Bill of Costs. Defendant filed his Bill
of Costs on October 29, 2020 seeking a total of $518.30 for transcripts (Docs. 58, 58-1).
Plaintiff filed an objection to the Bill of Costs on November 13, 2020 (Doc. 60).
Plaintiff asserts he should not be required to pay costs because while ultimately
unsuccessful, this was not a frivolous lawsuit. Additionally, he objects to the costs on
“hardship grounds,” as he does not have the ability or means to pay (Id.).
1

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. “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. Id.; 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. The burden of threshold factual finding of a party's inability
to pay is placed on the losing party and should be supported by documentation in the
form of “an affidavit or other documentary evidence of both income and assets, as well
as a schedule of expenses.” Id.
Here, Plaintiff was granted pauper status when this action commenced, and he has
been continuously incarcerated throughout the course of this litigation (see Doc. 7).
Plaintiff did not provide any supporting information to his short objections detailing his
current Trust Fund Balance or other financial information so the Court could assess his
2

current income, which is integral to the Court’s determination of whether a plaintiff is
incapable of paying costs. Even so, it is supported by the record that Plaintiff is incapable
of paying all of Defendants’ costs at this time as he is still currently incarcerated.
Turning to the amount of the costs, Defendants seek a total of $518.30. That sum,
while

not

astronomical,

is

substantial

to

a

prisoner

proceeding in

forma

pauperis. Furthermore, the Court 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 as he has
not submitted information about his current financial situation.
For these reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objection to costs since he
has not submitted an affidavit with his current financial status outlined clearly for the
Court, or other supporting materials and arguments, but will reduce the amount of
costs to $103.66. This amount represents 20% of the requested costs, which the Court
finds reasonable under the circumstances. The Court ORDERS an award of costs in the
total amount of $103.66, and the Clerk of Court shall tax costs in this amount against
Plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 12, 2021

s/ Mark A. Beatty
MARK A. BEATTY
United States Magistrate Judge

3