Hill v. Hosington et al

Filing 142

ORDER ENTERING AMENDED JUDGMENT; Denying 130 Amended MOTION for Costs filed by Ro' Kristian Broadnax Hill, and Denying 129 Ex Parte MOTION for Additional Time to File Amended Motion for Taxable Costs filed by Ro' Kristian Broadnax Hill. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

RO’KRISTIAN BROADNAX HILL,
Case No. 11-10333
Plaintiff,
SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
ARTHUR J. TARNOW

v.
ERIC HOISINGTON,

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MONA K. MAJZOUB

Defendant.
/

ORDER ENTERING AMENDED JUDGMENT; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED
MOTION FOR TAXABLE COSTS [130]; AND DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AMENDED MOTION FOR TAXABLE
COSTS [129]

On August 30, 2013, a jury returned a verdict finding Defendant liable on
Plaintiff’s battery claim but not on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for excessive force.
The jury awarded Plaintiff $5,000 in compensatory damages and $37,500 in
punitive damages.

On September 17, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Bill of Costs

[Dkt. #113] and a Motion for Taxable Costs [115]. On July 1, 2014, the Court
issued an Order [126] entering judgment on the jury verdict (including its award of
punitive damages), denying as moot Plaintiff’s Motion for Taxable Costs, and
directing Plaintiff to file an amended motion for taxable costs. Defendant appealed
1 of 3

the award of punitive damages.

On July 30, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant

Amended Motion for Taxable Costs [130], along with a Motion for Extension of
Time to File Amended Motion for Taxable Costs [129]. On August 31, 2015, the
Sixth Circuit reversed the award of punitive damages and remanded for entry of a
judgment including only an award of $5,000 in compensatory damages.
Broadnax-Hill v. Hosington, --- F. App’x ---, 2015 WL 5090805, at *3–*4, *6 (6th
Cir. 2015). The Court now enters an amended judgment consistent with the Sixth
Circuit’s decision.
The Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Taxable Costs [130].

Though

taxation of costs is subject to the Court’s review, it is initially a matter for
determination by the Court clerk. FED. R. CIV. P. 54(d)(1) (providing that the clerk
of the court may tax costs on fourteen days’ notice and that the court may, on
motion served within the next seven days, review the clerk’s action); E.D. MICH.
LOCAL R. 54.1 (“The clerk will tax costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) as provided
in the Bill of Costs Handbook available from the clerk’s office and the court’s web
site.”); FJN, LLC v. Parakh, No. 09–14262, 2014 WL 7139859, at *12 (E.D. Mich.
Dec. 12, 2014) (Tarnow, J.) (recognizing that taxation of costs is to be determined
initially by the clerk, and denying motion for taxable costs without prejudice to
parties’ rights to seek review of clerk’s future action).

2 of 3

Finally, since Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Taxable Costs [130] must be
denied even if considered timely, Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension of Time to
File [129] is denied as moot. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that an amended judgment is ENTERED against
Defendant in the amount of $5,000 in compensatory damages, consistent with the
Sixth Circuit’s decision on appeal.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for
Taxable Costs [130] is DENIED without prejudice to the parties’ rights to seek
review of the clerk’s future action, if any, on taxable costs.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of
Time to File Amended Motion for Costs [129] is DENIED as moot.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 8, 2015

s/Arthur J. Tarnow
Arthur J. Tarnow
Senior United States District Judge

3 of 3