Johns v. City of Eugene et al

Filing 107

OPINION AND ORDER: Defendants' Bill of Costs 102 is DENIED. Signed on 11/12/2019 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION

Case No. 6:16-cv-00907-M
OPINION AND ORDER

ALVIN JOHNS
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF EUGENE, OFFICER
YOLANDA CONNER, and OFFICER
BRYAN INMAN,
Defendants.

AIKEN, District Judge:
Defendants, as prevailing parties, have timely filed a Bill of Costs (doc. 102)
with this Court following the Court's entry of a Final Judgment (doc. 100) dismissing
this action. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES defendants' costs.

LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) provides that, "[u]nless a federal statute,
these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs-other than attorney's feesshould be allowed to the prevailing party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d). "Costs" taxable

Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER

under Rule 54(d) "are limited to those set forth in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1821."

Twentieth Cent1try Fox Film Corp. v. Entm't Distrib., 429 F.3d 869, 885 (9th Cir.
2005), (citing Crawford Fitting Co. v. J. T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 445 (1987)).
Although Rule 54 creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs to the
prevailing party, the rule also "vests in the district court discretion to refuse to award
costs." Ass'n of Mex.-Am. Ed1tcators v. California, 231 F.3d 572, 591 (9th Cir. 2000).
This discretion is not unlimited, and a district court must provide reasons for its
decision. Id. The Ninth Circuit was stated that
[a]ppropriate reasons for denying costs include: (1) the substantial
public importance of the case, (2) the closeness and difficulty of the
issues in the case, (3) the chilling effect on future similar actions, (4) the
plaintiffs limited financial resources, and (5) the economic disparity
between the parties.

Escriba v. Foster Po1tltry Farms, Inc., 743 F.3d 1236, 1247-48 (9th Cir. 2014). "This
is not an exhaustive list of good reasons for declining to award costs, but rather a
starting point for analysis." Id. at 1248 (quotation marks omitted).

DISCUSSION
Defendants seek $1,064.85 in costs.

Several of the factors listed above,

however, weigh in favor of denying costs. The issues in this case had "substantial
public importance." Ass'n of Mex-Am. Edztc., 231 F.3d at 592. This is primarily a civil
rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to vindicate plaintiffs
constitutional rights

under

the

Fourth Amendment

and the

Fourteenth

Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and that, though brought by an individual,
plays an important role in safeguarding against police misconduct and racial

Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER

discrimination.

See Draper v. Rosario, 836 F.3d 1072, 1088 (9th Cir. 2016)

("Individual Eight Amendment cases are important for safeguarding the rights and
safety of prisoners.").

And the issues in this case were close. Indeed, plaintiffs

Fourth Amendment claim survived summary judgment in this Court but was
subsequently reversed on appeal.
In light of the Court's consideration of the importance, closeness, and
complexity of the case and plaintiffs good faith in asserting his claims, the Court
exercises its discretion to deny defendants' bill of costs.
CONCLUSION

Defendants' Bill of Costs (doc. 102) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

/J.1::; of November 2019.
Ann Aiken
United States District Judge

Page 3 - OPINION AND ORDER