Santiago v. Bradley et al

Filing 228

ORDER denying 225 Bill of Costs. Signed by Judge Stephen P. McGlynn on 11/12/2021. (jce)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
FABIAN SANTIAGO,
#B79716,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-cv-989-SPM

TYLER A. BRADLEY, et al.,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MCGLYNN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Fabian Santiago, 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 Menard Correctional
Center and Hill Correctional Center. Specifically, he alleged that various publications
were withheld in violation of his First Amendment rights. The Court ultimately granted
summary judgment in favor of defendants (Doc. 207). Now pending before the Court
is Defendants’ Bill of Costs (Doc. 225) to which Plaintiff has objected (Doc.227). For the
following reasons, the Bill of Costs is DENIED.
Defendants’ Bill of Costs seeks reimbursement of $ 3,317.00 for costs incurred
taking the parties’ depositions, including obtaining copies of the transcripts. 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 be allowed to
the prevailing party.” Ordinarily the Clerk of Court taxes costs in favor of the prevailing

Page 1 of 3

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 Chicago, 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.

Page 2 of 3

In this case, Santiago filed a motion to appoint counsel on September 18, 2017
(Doc. 3). He also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on November 22, 2017 (Doc.
10). Although the motions were denied initially, the motions revealed that Santiago has
been incarcerated since 1996 and does not possess a detailed assignment. He also
included his Trust Fund statement from Hill CC (Doc. 10). Given his ongoing
incarceration, there is no reasonable basis to conclude that his financial condition has
changed in any meaningful way. Thus, the motion and Trust Fund account statement
that Santiago 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 Santiago was unsuccessful on his claims against defendants, the Court
also finds that his claims were not frivolous and he had a good faith basis for bringing
and prosecuting his lawsuit. Accordingly, defendants’ Bill of Costs (Doc. 225) is
DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 12, 2021
/s/ Stephen P. McGlynn_
STEPHEN P. McGLYNN
U.S. District Judge

Page 3 of 3