Richmond v. Huq, MD et al

Filing 94

ORDER Granting 87 MOTION to Deny Taxed Costs filed by Melisa Richmond; and VACATING 86 Costs Taxed. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MELISA RICHMOND,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 14-14892
v.
Hon. John Corbett O’Meara
RUBAB HUQ, M.D., et al.,
Defendant.
___________________________/

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO DENY COSTS
Before the court is Plaintiff’s motion to review/deny costs. The court
entered judgment in favor of Defendants on October 5, 2016. Defendants
submitted a bill of costs to the Clerk of the Court, who taxed costs in the amount of
$4,263.91. Plaintiff requests that the court exercise its discretion in favor of
denying the award of costs.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), there is a presumption
that the prevailing party is entitled to costs. See Singleton v. Smith, 241 F.3d 534,
539 (6th Cir. 2001). It is within the court’s discretion to deny costs under
appropriate circumstances. Id.; Banks v. Bosch Rexroth Corp., 611 Fed. Appx.
858, 860 (6th Cir. 2015). The court may consider factors such as “the losing party’s

good faith, the difficulty of the case, the winning party’s behavior, and the
necessity of the costs.” Singleton, 241 F.3d at 539. In addition, a “losing party’s
indigence weighs against taxing her with the winning party’s costs.” Banks, 611
Fed. Appx. at 860 (citing Singleton, 241 F.3d at 539).
Plaintiff argues that the court should not tax costs against her because she is
indigent. In an affidavit, Plaintiff states that she has been unemployed since 2009
and has no income or bank account. She suffers from physical and mental
disabilities, including major manic depressive/bipolar disorder, post-traumatic
stress disorder, and schizophrenia. She currently lives in a transition home for
victims of domestic abuse. She states that due to her disabilities, she has been
unable to find employment.
Based upon Plaintiff’s uncontested affidavit, the court finds that she is
indigent and that it would be inequitable to tax costs against her in this case. See
Crow v. Best Buy Co., 299 F. Supp.2d 802 (N.D. Ohio 2004) (declining to award
costs based upon the plaintiff’s indigence and that the taxation of costs against
“losing civil rights plaintiffs of modest means may chill civil rights litigation”).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to
review/deny costs is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Taxed Bill of Cost dated October 7,
-2-

2016, is VACATED.
s/John Corbett O’Meara
United States District Judge

Date: March 9, 2017

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon
counsel of record on this date, March 9, 2017, using the ECF system.

s/William Barkholz
Case Manager

-3-