Patterson v. Yazoo City, Mississippi et al

Filing 217

ORDER denying 207 Motion Objecting to Bill of Costs. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 01/15/2013 (PL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
HENRY LEWIS PATTERSON, “H.L.”

VERSUS

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:10-CV-00153-DCB-JMR

YAZOO CITY, MISSISSIPPI;
YAZOO COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI; and
YAZOO RECREATION COMMISSION

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Objections to the Defendants’
Bill of Costs [docket no. 207], wherein Plaintiff argues (1) the
deposition

costs

submitted

by

the

three

Defendants

were

duplicative, and (2) imposing any costs would create an enormous
hardship for him. Even though Plaintiff’s appeal is pending, this
Court has jurisdiction to rule on the Motion because it raises
issues ancillary to his appeal. Kusay v. United States, 62 F.3d
192, 194 (7th Cir. 1995) (“A district court may address ancillary
questions such as costs.”).
As to the first objection, whether Yazoo Recreation Commission
is a joint entity with Yazoo City and Yazoo County by virtue of its
funding was an issue litigated and resolved at the summary-judgment
stage. Yazoo Commission, as one of three prevailing parties, is a
separate entity and is entitled to depositions necessarily obtained
for use in the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1920. As
to the second objection, the Court has the discretion not to impose
costs upon an indigent plaintiff. See Leatherwood v. Houston Post

Co., 1996 WL 61492, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 26, 1996).1 Plaintiff,
however,

has

not

shown

that

he

is

indigent

or

otherwise

demonstrated that he cannot pay the defendants’ costs. See Rule v.
Region IV Mental Health, 2009 WL 151334, at 1 (N.D. Miss. Jan. 21,
2009).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s Objections to the
Defendants’ Bill of Costs [docket no. 207] are OVERRULED.
So ORDERED, this the 15th day of January 2013.

/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

One fact that distinguishes this case from Leatherwood, a
case in which the district court chose not to impose costs upon a
indigent plaintiff, is that the plaintiff in that case sought and
received the court’s approval to appeal its judgment in forma
pauperis. Leatherwood, 1996 WL 61492, at *3. Plaintiff did not move
to proceed IFP on appeal.
2