(PC) Pimentel v. Beard, et al., No. 2:2014cv01192 - Document 86 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 3/28/2019 RECOMMENDING defendants' 85 request for costs be granted in part; and costs be taxed against plaintiff in the amount of $410.75. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICARDO PIMENTEL, 12 No. 2:14-cv-1192 MCE DB P Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 J. BEARD, et al., 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff is a state prisoner who was proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 6, 2019, this case was closed, and judgment was entered in favor of 20 defendants. (ECF Nos. 82, 83.) On February 20, 2019, defendants filed a Bill of Costs seeking to 21 recover $821.50, the cost of plaintiff’s deposition transcript. (ECF No. 85.) Plaintiff has filed no 22 response. 23 24 LEGAL STANDARDS Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states: “Unless a federal statute, these 25 rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs—other than attorney's fees—should be allowed to 26 the prevailing party.” There is a presumption in favor of awarding costs to the prevailing party, 27 and a district court following the presumption need not specify its reasons for doing so. Save Our 28 Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 944-45 (9th Cir. 2003). However, the court may elect not 1 1 to award costs where the party is indigent or where other compelling circumstances exist. Escriba 2 v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc., 743 F.3d 1236, 1247-48 (9th Cir. 2014). The losing party must 3 demonstrate why costs should not be awarded. Nat'l Info. Servs., Inc. v. TRW, Inc., 51 F.3d 4 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1995), overruled on other grounds, Ass'n of Mexican-Am. Educators v. 5 State of California, 231 F.3d 572, 592-3 (9th Cir. 2000). “Appropriate reasons for denying costs 6 include: (1) the substantial public importance of the case, (2) the closeness and difficulty of the 7 issues in the case, (3) the chilling effect on future similar actions, (4) the plaintiff's limited 8 financial resources, and (5) the economic disparity between the parties.” Id. This list is not 9 exhaustive, but rather a starting point for analysis. Escriba, 743 F.3d at 1248. 10 The costs that may be taxed are those enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1920. See Alflex Corp. 11 v. Underwriters Lab., Inc., 914 F.2d 175 (9th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (citing Crawford Fitting Co. 12 v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441-42 (1987)). Section 1920(2) lists “[f]ees for printed or 13 electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case” as a taxable cost. 14 15 ANALYSIS This case involved plaintiff’s claims that defendants violated his First and Fifth 16 Amendment rights by retaliating against him and interfering with his right of access to the courts. 17 The court found plaintiff failed to provide facts to support necessary elements of his claims and 18 granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 82, 83.) Defendants were thus 19 the prevailing parties, and the prevailing parties generally are allowed to recover reasonable costs. 20 The court must balance the fact that plaintiff proceeded in this case as an indigent against 21 granting what is regularly awarded the prevailing party. It should be noted that defendants are not 22 seeking to recover excessive, questionable, or marginal costs. They seek nothing more than to be 23 repaid the amount actually paid to a third party for something almost always essential to defense 24 of a case - a transcript of plaintiff’s deposition testimony. 25 The court will consider specifically the factors identified in the above-cited cases. First, 26 this case is not one of public import; nor did it present close and difficult issues. Second, taxing 27 costs against plaintiff would no more chill his access to the courts than any other plaintiff. All 28 litigants must weigh the relative risks of filing a civil suit (including the financial risks) against 2 1 the potential benefits. See, e.g., Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1999) 2 (“[r]equiring prisoners to pay filing fees for suits will force them to go through the same thought 3 process non-inmates go through before filing a suit, i.e., is filing this suit worth the costs?”) 4 Third, the fact that plaintiff is an indigent inmate does not, alone, warrant special treatment. To 5 deny defendants costs solely on these grounds might well give plaintiff and others incentive to 6 file, risk free, multiple meritless lawsuits. Padula v. Morris, No. 2:05-CV-00411-MCE, 2014 WL 7 280971, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2014). 8 9 10 11 Finally, the economic disparity between the parties - a prisoner and a state entity - is about as great as one might envision. The state would hardly notice a $821.50 expenditure. Plaintiff, on the other hand, might never get out from under a debt of that magnitude. Considering all the foregoing, the court finds the interests of justice would not be served 12 by taxing the full amount of the costs against plaintiff. Still, defendant, as the prevailing party, is 13 entitled to some amount of reimbursement, and there is value and principle in holding 14 unsuccessful inmate litigants at least partially accountable for the costs of their suits. “The 15 district court may apportion costs between the winning and losing parties.” Oyarzo v. Tuolumne 16 Fire Dist., No. 1:11-CV-01271-SAB, 2014 WL 1757217, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2014) (citing 17 In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Lit., 221 F.3d 449, 469 (3rd Cir. 2000)). Therefore, defendant's 18 request for costs should be granted in part. Half of the cost of the deposition, or $410.75 should 19 be taxed against plaintiff. 20 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 21 1. Defendants’ request for costs (ECF No. 85) be GRANTED IN PART; and 22 2. Costs be taxed against plaintiff in the amount of $410.75. 23 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 24 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 25 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 26 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned 27 “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 28 objections shall be filed and served within seven days after service of the objections. 3 1 The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result 2 in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 3 Cir. 1991). 4 Dated: March 28, 2019 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 DLB:9 DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/pime1192.bill of costs 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4
]]>
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.
