Martin v. Redden et al

Filing 326

OPINION AND ORDER: The court OVERRULES his objection 315 ; DIRECTS the Clerk to tax costs in the amount of $163.76; ORDERS the plaintiff, Anthony C. Martin, IDOC # 945288, to pay (and the facility having custody to automatically remit) to t he clerk 20% of the money received for each calendar month during which $10.00 or more is received, until the $163.76 in costs is paid in full; DIRECTS the clerk to create a ledger for receipt of these funds and disperse those fund s to defendants, in accordance with the bill of costs; and (5) DIRECTS the clerk to send a copy of this order to each facility where the plaintiff is housed until the costs have been paid in full. Signed by Chief Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 7/13/2021. (Copy mailed to pro se party and Inmate Trust Fund) (lhc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
ANTHONY C. MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
v.

CAUSE NO. 3:18-CV-595-JD-MGG

REDDEN, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Anthony C. Martin, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed an objection to the
Defendants’ $163.76 bill of costs. ECF 313; ECF 315. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
54(d) provides that, “Unless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides
otherwise, costs—other than attorney’s fees—should be allowed to the prevailing
party.” Where a prisoner is proceeding in forma pauperis, “[j]udgment may be rendered
for costs at the conclusion of the suit or action as in other proceedings.” 28 U.S.C.
1915(f)(1). Under Rule 54(d)(1), there is a “presumption in favor of awarding costs to
the prevailing party[.]” Baker v. Lindgren, 856 F.3d 498, 502 (7th Cir. 2017).
Martin argues that costs should not be imposed because he is indigent and was
proceeding in forma pauperis. ECF 321. “[T]he mere fact that Plaintiff proceeded in this
lawsuit in forma pauperis … does not necessarily prove that he is indigent and unable
to pay Defendant’s costs.” Ramirez v. Illinois Dep't of Hum. Servs., No. 08 C 5272, 2015
WL 1593876, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 2, 2015). See also McGill v. Faulkner, 18 F.3d 456, 460 (7th
Cir. 1994) (upholding an award of costs where the Court of Appeals for the Seventh

Circuit was “not convinced on the record that [plaintiff] will not ever be able to pay the
order imposing costs.”). Martin has produced no evidence whatsoever of his inability to
pay costs either now or in the future.
Martin also argues that costs should not be imposed because he is appealing the
Court’s sanctions ruling in this case. ECF 321. However, “a district court may award
costs even while the substantive appeal is pending.” Lorenz v. Valley Forge Ins. Co., 23
F.3d 1259, 1260 (7th Cir. 1994)
Martin further argues that the defendants are not a prevailing party here. ECF
321. A prevailing party is “a party that prevails on a substantial part of the litigation.”
Baker, 856 F.3d at 502. “[A] party may meet that standard even when the party does
not prevail on every claim.” Id. Under Rule 54(d), “[w]here there is a dismissal of an
action, even where such dismissal is voluntary and without prejudice, the defendant is
the prevailing party.” First Commodity Traders, Inc. v. Heinold Commodities, Inc., 766 F.2d
1007, 1015 (7th Cir. 1985) (quoting 6 J. Moore, W. Taggart & J. Wicker, Moore's Federal
Practice ¶ 54.70[4] (2d ed. 1985)). This case was dismissed in its entirety as a sanction for
submitting a fraudulent document, and judgment was entered in the defendants’ favor.
ECF 311; ECF 312. Thus, the defendants have prevailed in this action.
Martin has not overcome the presumption that costs are appropriate here. For
this reason, the court:
(1) OVERRULES his objection (ECF 315);
(2) DIRECTS the Clerk to tax costs in the amount of $163.76;

2

(3) ORDERS the plaintiff, Anthony C. Martin, IDOC # 945288, to pay (and the
facility having custody to automatically remit) to the clerk 20% of the money received
for each calendar month during which $10.00 or more is received, until the $163.76 in
costs is paid in full;
(4) DIRECTS the clerk to create a ledger for receipt of these funds and disperse
those funds to defendants, in accordance with the bill of costs; and
(5) DIRECTS the clerk to send a copy of this order to each facility where the
plaintiff is housed until the costs have been paid in full.
SO ORDERED on July 13, 2021
/s/JON E. DEGUILIO
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3