Ashley W. v. Holcomb, No. 21-3028 (7th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

When the Indiana Department of Child Services identifies a situation that involves the apparent neglect or abuse of a child, it files a “CHINS” (Children in Need of Services) petition that may request the child’s placement with foster parents. Minors who are or were subject to CHINS proceedings sought an injunction covering how the Department investigates child welfare. The district court denied a request to abstain and declined to dismiss the suit.

The Seventh Circuit reversed, noting that only two plaintiffs still have live claims and that it is improper for a federal court to issue an injunction requiring a state official to comply with existing state law. Indiana subsequently filed a bill of costs under Fed. R. App. P. 39(a)(3), against the next friends who represented the minors’ interests. The Seventh Circuit denied that petition. Next friends are not parties to suits in which they assist minors or incompetent persons. Rule 39(a) authorizes awards against losing litigants, not against their agents (which may include lawyers and guardians ad litem as well as next friends). The next friends in this litigation are neither the children’s natural parents nor their foster parents and are not generally responsible for the children’s expenses.

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on May 16, 2022.

Download PDF

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-3028 ASHLEY W., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ERIC HOLCOMB, GOVERNOR OF INDIANA, et al., Defendants-Appellants. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Evansville Division. No. 3:19-cv-00129-RLY-MPB — Richard L. Young, Judge. ____________________ DECIDED JULY 11, 2022 ____________________ EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge, in chambers. Appellants (collectively Indiana) prevailed in this appeal, 34 F.4th 588 (7th Cir. 2022), and led a bill of costs under Fed. R. App. P. 39(a)(3), which provides that “if a judgment is reversed, costs are taxed against the appellee”. But they did not request costs from the appellees, who are children. Instead they sought costs from the next friends who represented the children’s interests. 2 No. 21-3028 Indiana does not cite, and I could not nd, any appellate decision holding that costs may be assessed against next friends under Rule 39(a). The lack of authority is unsurprising, because the Supreme Court has held that next friends are not parties to suits in which they assist minors or incompetent persons. See Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163 (1990); Morgan v. Po>er, 157 U.S. 195, 198 (1895). Rule 39(a) authorizes awards against losing litigants, not against their agents (which may include lawyers and guardians ad litem as well as next friends). Some district judges have awarded costs against next friends under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) when the next friend is responsible for the child’s expenses generally. See, e.g., C.M.J. v. Walt Disney Parks & Resorts US, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112188 (M.D. Fla. July 19, 2017); Gohl v. Livonia Public Schools, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34245 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 2, 2018). That would be so if, for example, a child’s parents sue as next friends. But the next friends in this litigation are neither the children’s natural parents nor their foster parents. That may explain why Indiana does not ask for an award of costs against the children, as the state may need to reimburse foster parents for the expenses of these children. Indiana does not want a circular award under which it pays with one hand what it receives with the other. Rule 39’s text resolves this subject against Indiana. Its request for an award of costs against the next friends is denied.

Primary Holding

Seventh Circuit denies Indiana's petition for costs against the next friends of children who brought a lawsuit challenging the state's handling of child welfare cases.

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.