Willis v. Wexford Helath Sources, Inc. et al

Filing 94

ORDER: Plaintiff's 90 objection to 80 Bill of Costs filed by Wexford Health Sources Inc, Mohammed Siddiqui, Ryan Sutterer, and 82 Bill of Costs filed by Gail Walls is OVERRULED. Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay costs in the amount of $60.00 ($30.00 to Defendants Wexford, Siddiqui, and Sutterer, and $30.00 to Defendant Walls). Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 3/27/2020. (ely)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WAYNE WILLIS,

Plaintiff,
vs.
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., et
al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 18-cv-617-RJD

ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the Bill of Costs (Docs. 80, 82) filed by Defendant Walls
and Defendants Siddiqui, Sutterer, and Wexford. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition (Doc.
90). The Court directed Plaintiff to file an updated trust fund account and Plaintiff supplemented
his response with a current statement (Doc. 92-1).
Background
Plaintiff Wayne Wallis is an inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections. On March
26, 2018, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February
18, 2020, summary judgment was granted in favor of Defendants. Judgment was entered on the
same date. Defendants Siddiqui, Sutterer, and Wexford seek to have Plaintiff pay $1,976.50 in
costs for deposition transcripts used in defending the case and Defendant Walls seeks to have
Plaintiff pay $1,296.60 in costs for deposition transcripts used in defending the case. Defendants
provided receipts evidencing the costs of obtaining the deposition transcripts. Plaintiff filed a
response arguing he is indigent and unable to pay the cost now and in the future.

Page 1 of 3

Legal Standard
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. Recoverable costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920
include: (1) fees of the clerk and marshal; (2) fees for printed or 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; and (6) compensation of court appointed
experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special
interpretation services. 28 U.S.C. § 1920(1)-(6). “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 if the losing party is indigent and has no ability to
pay. Id. 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, 460 (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.
Analysis
Plaintiff was granted pauper status when this action commenced, and he has been
continuously incarcerated throughout the course of this litigation (Doc. 6). However, despite his
Page 2 of 3

pauper status, a review of his trust fund account statement detailing transactions from March 1,
2020 through March 27, 2020 reveals he had a balance of $300.00 as of March 6, 2020 (Doc. 921). Based on a review of Plaintiff’s evidence, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff is incapable of
paying some court-imposed costs in this case.
The Court also 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.
Conclusion
For these reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objection to costs, but will reduce
the amount of costs to $60.00. This amount represents 20% of Plaintiff’s trust fund account
balance in March 2020 and is consistent with the Court’s approach for its collection of filing fees
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The Court ORDERS an award of costs in the amount of $30.00
to Defendants Siddiqui, Sutterer, and Wexford, and $30.00 to Defendant Walls.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 27, 2020
s/ Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 3 of 3