Peterkin v. Summer et al
Filing
109
DECISION AND ORDER granting Defendant's 105 Bill of Costs. Defendant is awarded $482.36 in costs. The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the judgement entered in this case to include the sum stated in the Bill of Costs.Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 7/30/2020. (JEH)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-Copies of this order and NEF were mailed to the pro se Plaintiff.
Case 6:17-cv-06106-FPG-MJP Document 109 Filed 07/31/20 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
KAHENE PETERKIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case # 17-CV-6106
DECISION AND ORDER
RODNEY SUMMERS
Defendant.
INTRODUCTION
On June 18, 2020, a judgement was entered in favor of Defendant Rodney Summers against
Plaintiff Kahene Peterkin. ECF No. 104. On June 25, 2020, Defendant submitted a Bill of Costs
seeking reimbursement of $482.36 for Plaintiff’s deposition transcript. ECF No. 105. Plaintiff filed
a timely opposition to the Bill of Costs. ECF No. 107. Plaintiff filed an additional Declaration in
support of the Bill of Costs. ECF No. 108. For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendant’s
Bill of Costs.
DISCUSSION
The Court may award costs as outlined under Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. This rule allows for granting of costs to the prevailing party, other than attorney’s fees,
“unless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d).
The Court may “tax as costs” several fees including “[f]ees for printed or electronically recorded
transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case.” 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2). It is the general rule, not
the exception, to allow these costs in civil litigation. McGowan v. Schuck, No. 12-CV-6557, 2018
WL 6011166, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2018).
“[T]he losing party has the burden to show that costs should not be imposed . . . .”
Nicholson v. Fischer, No. 13-CV-6072, 2018 WL 6616333, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2018)
1
Case 6:17-cv-06106-FPG-MJP Document 109 Filed 07/31/20 Page 2 of 3
(quoting Whitfield v. Scully, 241 F.3d 264, 270 (2d Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by
Bruce v. Samuels, 136 S. Ct. 627 (2016)). For instance, costs may be denied based on: (1)
misconduct by the prevailing party; (2) the public importance of the case; (3) the difficulty of the
issues; or (4) the losing party’s limited financial resources. Id. Plaintiff objects to the Bill of Costs
based on his limited financial resources. ECF No. 107 at 2. Plaintiff was previously granted in
forma pauperis status by the Court. ECF No. 6. The statute that governs IFP proceedings, 28
U.S.C. § 1915, “expressly provides for awarding costs at the conclusion of the suit or action as in
other cases,” therefore in forma pauperis status on its own is not a persuasive argument to attack
a Bill of Costs. Bausano v. Annucci, No. 16-CV-6544, 2020 WL 3447780, at *2 (internal quotation
marks omitted).
To support his assertion of indignancy, Plaintiff submitted a statement from his inmate
account for the month of May 2020. ECF No. 107 at 3. This statement shows a beginning balance
of roughly $590 and an ending balance of roughly $559. Id. The statement also reflects a steady
stream of small payroll deposits throughout the month. Id. A Plaintiff’s conclusory statements of
his inability to pay, paired with the fact that money is flowing into his inmate account is
“insufficient to overcome the presumption that costs should be awarded” to the prevailing party.
Kenyon v. Weber, No. 16-CV-6510, 2019 WL 5064684, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 9, 2019).
Plaintiff also claims that the Bill of Costs should be waived because Defendant failed to
provide a description of the transcripts prepared, the number of pages, the per-page rate, and the
total cost. ECF No. 107 at 2. Defendant, in fact, provided such information. ECF No. 105 at 3.
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to carry his burden to show
that costs should not be imposed.
2
Case 6:17-cv-06106-FPG-MJP Document 109 Filed 07/31/20 Page 3 of 3
CONCLUSION
Defendant’s Bill of Costs, ECF No. 105, is granted and Defendant is awarded $482.36 in
costs. The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the judgement entered in this case to include the
sum stated in the Bill of Costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 30, 2020
Rochester, New York
______________________________________
HON. FRANK P. GERACI, JR.
Chief Judge
United States District Court
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?