SCOTT v. MAHLMEISTER et al

Filing 115

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 110 Plaintiff's Motion for Return of Costs/Filing Fees. AND NOW, this 12th day of October, 2011, for the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Return of Costs/Fees is DENIED. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 10/12/11.(jdg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
STEVEN SCOTT,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEBRA MAHLMEISTER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 06-34 Erie
Judge Sean J. McLaughlin

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
McLAUGHLIN, SEAN J., J.

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Steven Scott=s Motion for Return of
Costs/Fees Pursuant to Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In his motion,
Scott contends that he was the prevailing party in the above-captioned civil action and,
as such, he is entitled to reimbursement of his $350.00 filing fee.
On February 13, 2006, Scott, a pro se prisoner, filed the instant action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several Department of Corrections officials alleging
violations of his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution. A two-day jury trial on Scott’s claims was conducted on October 2
and 3, 2007, addressing Scott’s claim that defendants had failed to protect him from
attack by another inmate in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On October 3, 2007,
the jury returned a verdict in Scott’s favor with respect to one of three defendants,
Debra Mahlmeister, but awarded no damages. (See Docket #55). The jury found in
favor of the other two defendants. Judgment was entered on October 3, 2007, with no
costs taxed against any party. (See Docket #58).
On October 26, 2007, Scott filed a notice of appeal with the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals. (See Docket # 60). On March 18, 2009, the Third Circuit dismissed Scott’s
appeal and affirmed the October 3, 2007 judgment. (See Docket ## 79, 81).

In the instant motion, Scott seeks the return of his $350.00 filing fee pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 which provides:
(1) Costs Other Than Attorney’s Fees. Unless a federal
statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs –
other than attorney’s fees – should be allowed to the prevailing
party. But costs against the United States, its officers, and its
agencies may be imposed only to the extent allowed by law. The
clerk may tax costs on 14 days’ notice. On motion served within
the next 7 days, the court may review the clerk’s action.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). The decision whether to award costs is within the discretion of
the district court. See In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litigation, 221 F.3d 449, 458 (3rd Cir.
2000). It is similarly within the discretion of the district court to determine whether to
consider an untimely objection to the clerk’s taxation of costs. Id. at 459.
The Third Circuit has held that Rule 54(d)(1) contains no jurisdictional time
limitation. See Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litigation, 221 F.3d at 459 (“Rule 54(d)(1)’s . . .
limitations period is not jurisdictional, and courts may, in their discretion, consider
untimely objections.”).

However, this district’s Local Rule 54(B)(2) provides the

following guidance:
While there is no strict deadline for filing a bill of costs with the
Court, a bill of costs must be filed within a reasonable period of
time, which should be no later than 45 days after a final judgment
is entered by the District Court.
Here, Scott waited almost four years following the Clerk of Court’s failure to tax costs,
and over two years since the Third Circuit rejected his appeal, before filing a motion
seeking return of his filing fee. In the intervening time, twenty-nine separate partial
payments of the filing fee have been withdrawn from Scott’s inmate account, providing
Scott with abundant notice that he had been charged with paying his own filing fee.
Scott has provided no explanation or justification for this extraordinary delay. Under
such circumstances, a district court is not obligated to review the taxation of costs. See
Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litigation, 221 F.3d at 459 (“If a party fails to file a timely objection

to the clerk’s taxation of costs, any objection is waived, and the district court is not
obliged to review the taxation of costs.”) (citing 10 Moore's Federal Practice § 54.103, at
54-174 to 54-197 (3d ed.1999)) (emphasis in original).
For the foregoing reasons, I conclude that Scott’s delay of approximately 4 years
before applying for costs to be taxed against defendants is unreasonable and, as such,
his motion for return of his filing fee is denied.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
STEVEN SCOTT,
Plaintiff,
vi.
DEBRA MAHLMEISTER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 06-34 Erie
Judge Sean J. McLaughlin

ORDER
AND NOW, this 12th day of October, 2011, for the reasons set forth above, it is
hereby ORDERED that Petitioner=s Motion for Return of Costs/Fees is DENIED.
/s/ - Sean J. McLaughlin
United States District Judge
cm:

All parties of record.