Steeg v. Vilsack

Filing 123

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 4/17/18; denying 120 Motion to Prevent Manifest Injustice; denying 121 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis: cc: Counsel, Jami Steeg(DJT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
PADUCAH DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-CV-00086-TBR
JAMI W. STEEG,

PLAINTIFF

v.
THOMAS J. VILSACK,
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Jami W. Steeg’s motion “to prevent manifest
injustice” and motion to appeal in forma pauperis. [DN 120; DN 121.] Because the Court has
already addressed and rejected all of Steeg’s arguments, the Court will deny both motions.
BACKGROUND
This action came before the Court for a trial by jury on November 7, 2016. [DN 42
(Scheduling Order).] On November 10, 2016, the jury returned its verdict, finding that Defendant
did not sexually harass or retaliate against Plaintiff Jami Steeg. [See DN 90 (Jury Verdict).] The
Court thereafter entered judgment in Defendant’s favor on all claims. [DN 92 (Judgment).]
Defendant timely submitted a verified motion for costs, accompanied by invoices of the various
expenses. [See DN 96 (Verified Motion for Costs) and accompanying exhibits.] Defendant’s trial
counsel, Assistant United States Attorney Jessica Malloy, stated that the costs Defendant seeks
were necessarily incurred in this case. [DN 96-2.] Defendant sought to recover three costs: (1)
the costs associated with deposing seven individuals who testified at trial, 2) the cost of obtaining
transcripts of Plaintiff’s phone recordings, and 3) witness attendance costs for six witnesses.1

1

Though Defendant also initially sought reimbursement for certain expert witness fees, [DN 96-1 at 7], after
Plaintiff objected to those costs, Defendant withdrew its request for those fees. [DN 97 at 3–4; DN 98 at 5.]
Accordingly, those costs were not awarded.

1

[See DN 96-1 at 1–7 (Memorandum in Support of Verified Motion for Costs).] The Court
granted Defendants motion with respect to each of those categories of costs, awarding a total
amount of $6,706.91. [DN 100.]
Thereafter, Plaintiff appealed the Court’s decision as to costs to the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals, [DN 101.] Plaintiff then filed a motion for reduction or elimination of the costs
imposed by the Court and a separate letter, which the Court construed as a motion requesting the
Court to reconsider its Order imposing such costs. [DN 103; DN 105.] The Court denied both of
Plaintiff’s motions, finding that those motions largely raised arguments that were already raised
in her response to Defendant’s motion for costs, [DN 97], which the Court had already addressed
in its Order imposing costs. [DN 100.]
Plaintiff also raised one new argument, asserting that Defendant failed to submit all of the
required documentation for its claimed costs. [DN 103 at 1; DN 105 at 6.] The Court rejected
this argument for two reasons; first because Steeg did not specify which documentation was
allegedly missing, and second, because under Rule 59(e), “a motion to reconsider generally is
not a vehicle to reargue a case; it may not be used to raise arguments that could have been raised
on initial consideration.” United States v. LaDeau, 734 F.3d 561, 572 (6th Cir. 2013); see also
Roger Miller Music, Inc. v. Sony/ATV Publ’g, LLC, 477 F.3d 383, 395 (6th Cir. 2007) (“[P]arties
cannot use a motion for reconsideration to raise new legal arguments that could have been raised
before a judgment was issued.”). Steeg failed to raise this issue in her initial opposition to
Defendant’s motion for costs.
Finally, the Court addressed Plaintiff and her mother’s arguments that Plaintiff was the
subject of workplace harassment which caused her great emotional distress and harm, and
therefore that Plaintiff should not be charged with the costs of bringing suit. The Court

2

explained, however, that the jury did not find in favor of Plaintiff on these claims at trial. And, as
the Court explained in its Order granting costs, the law is clear that “costs--other than attorney’s
fees--should be allowed to the prevailing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1).
Most recently, Plaintiff filed a motion “to prevent manifest injustice” and a motion to
appeal in forma pauperis. [DN 120; DN 121.]
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s motion to prevent manifest injustice largely repeats the same arguments she
made in her response to Defendant’s motion for costs and in her motions for reconsideration. In
detail, Plaintiff argues that her claims of sexual harassment or retaliation were “the truth and it
happened. The defendant (Bill Burgess) walked away, with my dignity, my job, livelihood and
any ability to feel normal in my life.” [DN 120 at 1.] She further states that “sexual harassment [
] is everywhere” and that “[i]t is unfortunate that [she] had to live it.” [Id.] In sum, Plaintiff asks
the Court not “to allow any more injustice to take place” by requiring Plaintiff to pay costs. [Id.
at 2.]
The Court sympathizes with Plaintiff’s arguments. However, the Court must follow the
law. Plaintiff had the opportunity to present her claims to a jury, and the jury found in favor of
the Defendant. As the Court has already explained, the law is clear that “costs--other than
attorney’s fees--should be allowed to the prevailing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1).
Accordingly, the Court will not reduce or eliminate the award of costs to Defendant.
Finally, Plaintiff has moved to appeal in forma pauperis. [DN 121.] However, Plaintiff
already filed an in forma pauperis motion in this Court in June 2017. [DN 104.] The Court
denied that motion, finding that Plaintiff’s appeal is frivolous and not taken in good faith. [DN
117.] Plaintiff next filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis with the Sixth Circuit Court of

3

Appeals. The Sixth Circuit likewise denied her motion “because there is no non-frivolous
argument that the district court’s award of costs was an abuse of discretion.” [DN 122.] Now,
Plaintiff has filed yet another in forma pauperis motion in this Court, [DN 121.] For the same
reasons as the Court stated previously, that motion is denied.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed herein, Plaintiff’s motions to prevent manifest injustice and to
appeal in forma pauperis, [DN 120; DN 121], are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date:
cc:

April 17, 2018

Counsel
and
Jami Steeg
271 Titanium Ln
Jackson, MO 63755
PRO SE

4