Woodard v. Casey et al
Filing
85
ORDER granting 82 Motion for Out of Pocket Expenses. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 10/8/2020. (dsw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BILLY RAY WOODARD,
#N87909,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 17-cv-687-DWD
DR. CASEY, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the motion for out-of-pocket expenses (Doc. 82)
filed by Attorney John R. Clemons. Attorney Clemons seeks reimbursement of $950.161
in expenses.
The Plan for Administration of the District Court Fund Section 2.6 authorizes any
District or Magistrate Judge to approve a request for up to $5,000 via signed Order. Here,
the undersigned finds the expenses to be reasonable and thus GRANTS the motion
(Doc. 82). Pursuant to the Plan for the Administration of the District Court Fund, the
The Court notes that Mr. Clemons initially seeks reimbursement in the amount of $950.16 (Doc. 82, p. 1).
At the conclusion of his pleading, however, Mr. Clemons seeks reimbursement in the amount of $964.96
(Doc. 82, p. 2). The latter appears to be a typographical error. The receipts attached to the pleading support
Mr. Clemons request for reimbursement in the amount of $950.16.
1
Page 1 of 2
Clerk of Court is ORDERED to pay Attorney John R. Clemons in the amount of nine
hundred fifty dollars, and sixteen cents ($950.16), representing the out-of-pocket
expenses reasonably incurred to date in this case by Plaintiff’s court-assigned counsel.
The Court advises Mr. Clemons that, if this matter proceeds and Mr. Clemons
seeks additional reimbursement for expenses associated with trial, no more than $5000.00
in out-of-pocket expenses may be reimbursed. Finally, the Court thanks Mr. Clemons for
his service to date in this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 8, 2020
DAVID W. DUGAN
United States District Judge
Page 2 of 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?