Garcia v. Sleeley et al, No. 3:2014cv01525 - Document 201 (S.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER granting 189 Plaintiff's motion for review of costs. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 8/13/2020. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jpp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Garcia v. Sleeley et al Doc. 201 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUBEN DARIO GARCIA, JR., Case No.: 14-CV-1525 JLS (RBM) Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 SLEELEY, et al., ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REVIEW OF COSTS (ECF No. 189) Defendants. 15 16 17 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Ruben Dario Garcia, Jr.’s unopposed Motion 18 for Review of Costs (“Mot.,” ECF No. 189), which the Court construes as a motion to re- 19 tax costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1). 20 considered Plaintiff’s Motion, the record in this matter, and the relevant law, the Court 21 GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion. 22 Having carefully BACKGROUND 23 Plaintiff instituted this action, pro se, on June 23, 2014, challenging treatment he 24 received for his carpal tunnel syndrome while incarcerated at the Richard J. Donovan 25 Correctional Facility in San Diego, California. See generally ECF No. 1. The Court 26 granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis on February 17, 2015. See generally 27 ECF No. 8. 28 /// 1 14-CV-1525 JLS (RBM) Dockets.Justia.com 1 Following multiple challenges to Plaintiff’s complaints, see ECF Nos. 28, 92–94, 2 Defendants filed answers to Plaintiff’s surviving claims, see ECF Nos. 149, 152, and the 3 Parties engaged in discovery. See, e.g., ECF No. 140. Defendants moved for summary 4 judgment in early 2019. See ECF Nos. 160, 168. On August 19, 2019, the Court overruled 5 Plaintiff’s objections, adopted Magistrate Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro’s report and 6 recommendation, and granted Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. See ECF No. 7 178. Judgment was entered on August 19, 2019, see ECF No. 179, from which Plaintiff 8 appealed. See ECF No. 186. 9 On August 27, 2019, Defendants filed a Bill of Costs for $1,090.95 incurred in 10 “[f]ees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the 11 case.” See ECF No. 180. Although Plaintiff objected, see ECF No. 182, the Clerk of Court 12 taxed costs against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,090.95 on September 13, 2019. See ECF 13 No. 183. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion on September 22, 2019. See ECF No. 189. 14 LEGAL STANDARD 15 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 provides that, “[u]nless a federal statute, these 16 rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs--other than attorney’s fees--should be 17 allowed to the prevailing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). “Judgment may be rendered for 18 costs at the conclusion of the [in forma pauperis prisoner’s] suit or action as in other 19 proceedings. . . . If the judgment against a prisoner includes the payment of costs . . . , the 20 prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of the costs ordered.” 28 U.S.C. 21 §§ 1915(f)(1), (2)(A). “On a motion served within . . . 7 days [of receipt of an order taxing 22 costs], the court may review the clerk’s [order taxing costs].” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). 23 Rule 54 “creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs to a prevailing party, but 24 vests in the district court discretion to refuse to award costs.” Ass’n of Mexican-Am. 25 Educators v. California, 231 F.3d 572, 591 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Nonetheless, the 26 court’s discretion is not unlimited—a district court must “specify reasons” for its refusal to 27 award costs. Subscription Television, Inc. v. S. Cal. Theatre Owners Ass’n, 576 F.2d 230, 28 234 (9th Cir. 1978). “In reviewing a motion to deny costs, the Ninth Circuit has noted the 2 14-CV-1525 JLS (RBM) 1 following reasons for refusing to award costs to a prevailing party: (1) the losing party’s 2 limited financial resources; (2) misconduct on the part of the prevailing party; (3) whether 3 the issues in the case were close and difficult; (4) whether the prevailing party’s recovery 4 was nominal or partial; (5) whether the losing party litigated in good faith; and (6) whether 5 the case presented issues of national importance.” James v. Tade, No. 15-CV-409-AJB- 6 MDD, 2018 WL 2734882, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 7, 2018) (citing Champion Produce, Inc. 7 v. Ruby Robinson Co., 342 F.3d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 2003)). But this is not “an exhaustive 8 list of ‘good reasons’ for declining costs.” Ass’n of Mexican-Am. Educators, 231 F.3d at 9 593. 10 In a civil rights case, it is an abuse of discretion to deny a losing “plaintiff’s motion 11 to re-tax costs without considering (1) the plaintiff’s limited financial resources; and 12 (2) ‘the chilling effect of imposing such high costs on future civil rights litigants.’” Id. at 13 592 (quoting Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 178 F.3d 1069, 1079–80 (9th Cir. 1999)); see also 14 Draper v. Rosario, 836 F.3d 1072, 1089 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Because several factors weigh 15 heavily against a large cost award in this case, and severe injustice would result from such 16 an award, the district court abused its discretion in taxing costs of $3,018.35 against [the 17 prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis].”) (citing Stanley, 178 F.3d at 1079–80). “[I]t is 18 incumbent upon the losing party to demonstrate why the costs should not be 19 awarded.” Stanley, 178 F.3d at 1079. 20 DISCUSSION 21 Plaintiff requests that the Court deny the $1,090.95 in costs awarded to Defendants 22 A. Denbela, P. Newton, K. Seeley, and R. Walker on the grounds that Defendants failed to 23 itemize the costs claimed pursuant to Civil Local Rule 54.1(a) and that Plaintiff “is indigent 24 and can[]not pay the Bill of Costs claimed by defendants.” Mot. at 3. 25 “Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis and incarceration status combine to establish his 26 limited financial resources.” See Avalos v. Carpenter, No. 115CV00369LJOJLTPC, 2018 27 WL 453685, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2018). Indeed, when Plaintiff requested leave to 28 proceed in forma pauperis, he had an available balance of $0 in his Inmate Statement 3 14-CV-1525 JLS (RBM) 1 Report and owed over $1,000 for copying and mail services and for filing fees under the 2 Prison Litigation Reform Act. See ECF No. 7 at 7; see also Roberts v. Hensley, No. 3 15CV1871-LAB (BLM), 2019 WL 2618124, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 25, 2019) (concluding 4 that prisoner was “clearly indigent” where “[h]e ha[d] no funds in any of his accounts and 5 thus would be unable to pay any costs assessed to him”); Birdwell v. Cates, No. 2-10-CV- 6 00719-KJM-AC, 2013 WL 3155007, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 18, 2013) (granting motion to 7 re-tax costs of $649.55 based on indigence where the “plaintiff was allowed to proceed in 8 forma pauperis in this case as his trust account statement showed he had almost nothing in 9 the account at the time he filed the complaint and his application reflected a prison job 10 paying $0.32 an hour,” rendering the costs “substantial . . . for a man earning far far less 11 than minimum wage”). “Unfortunately, courts have held that once costs are awarded, ‘a 12 prisoner cannot avoid responsibility based on indigence.’” James, 2018 WL 2734882, at 13 *2. “Therefore, indigence, standing alone, does not justify Plaintiff evading the taxation 14 of costs.” See id. 15 The Court concludes, however, that additional factors weigh against an award of 16 costs in this case, such that awarding costs against Plaintiff would amount to an abuse of 17 the Court’s discretion. See Draper, 836 F.3d at 1089. “[Plaintiff]’s case was not without 18 merit, and was pursued in good faith.” 19 CV0606814SJOSHX, 2009 WL 10684925, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2009). Indeed, two 20 of Plaintiff’s claims survived to summary judgment. Further, “[t]here is no comparison 21 between [a pro se prisoner]’s limited resources and those of the state of California, which 22 bore the defense costs.” See Draper, 836 F.3d at 1089. And, most importantly, “[w]ere 23 the Court to find [Plaintiff] liable for costs, it would chill the willingness of other inmates 24 who believe they received inadequate [health] care [or suffered retaliation] from pursuing 25 those claims.” See Roberts, 2019 WL 2618124, at *2; see also Avalos, 2018 WL 453685, 26 at *1–2 (“[W]hile [the Court] is ‘what some may call ‘inundated’ with similar cases filed 27 under section 1983 by indigent inmates, the potential chilling effect of being taxed with 28 costs upon defeat cannot be ignored in cases such as these.’”) (collecting cases) (quoting See Buenrostro v. Gonzales, No. 4 14-CV-1525 JLS (RBM) 1 Draper, 836 F.3d at 1088–89). Accordingly, “district courts have routinely declined to 2 award costs against prisoners proceeding in forma pauperis under similar circumstances, 3 citing potential chilling effects.” See Draper, 836 F.3d at 1088. 4 The Court therefore concludes that “Plaintiff has rebutted the presumption that the 5 prevailing party should be awarded its costs and has demonstrated that this is the ‘rare 6 occasion where severe injustice will result from an award of costs.’” See Shamir v. SCCA 7 Store Holdings, Inc., No. CV1306672ABCASX, 2014 WL 12610198, at *3 (C.D. Cal. 8 Nov. 4, 2014) (quoting Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 946 (9th Cir. 9 2003)). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion. See, e.g., id. at *3 (“On 10 balance, Plaintiff’s extremely limited financial resources, the importance of her case, the 11 chilling effect on future potential plaintiffs, and the economic disparity between the parties 12 favor the Court exercising its discretion to deny Defendant’s costs.”); Baltimore v. 13 Haggins, No. 1:10-cv-00931-LJO-JLT, 2014 WL 804463, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2014) 14 (denying $1,462.61 in costs); Buenrostro v. Gonzales, No. CV0606814SJOSHX, 2009 WL 15 10684925, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2009) (concluding that “the totality of the 16 circumstances of this case makes imposing costs on [unsuccessful plaintiff] inappropriate” 17 where “requiring her to pay [the prevailing defendant’s] costs would impose serious 18 financial hardship[,] . . . there is a significant economic disparity between [the plaintiff] 19 and [the defendant] . . . , [the plaintiff]’s case was not without merit, and was pursued in 20 good faith . . . , [and] imposing these costs on [the plaintiff] could ‘chill individual litigants 21 of modest means seeking to vindicate important rights’”). 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 5 14-CV-1525 JLS (RBM) 1 2 3 4 CONCLUSION In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion. Accordingly, Defendants SHALL NOT recover costs in this action. IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: August 13, 2020 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 14-CV-1525 JLS (RBM)
]]>
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.
