Alexander v. Diaz

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANAND JON ALEXANDER, Case No.: 20cv100-CAB-KSC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. RETAX COSTS [Doc. No. 65] 14 PATRICK COVELLO et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Anand Jon Alexander, a prisoner currently incarcerated at the Richard J. Donovan 18 Correctional Facility (“RJD”), and who is represented by counsel in this civil action, 19 alleges various state prison officials violated his Eighth Amendment rights and were 20 negligent when they failed to protect him from an attack by another inmate. On February 21 22, 2022, this Court issued an order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment 22 [Doc. No. 55], and judgment was entered accordingly [Doc. No. 56]. On February 28, 23 2022, Defendants submitted a Bill of Costs. [Doc. No. 57.] On April 12, 2022, the Clerk 24 of Court taxed costs in the amount of $2,742.95 against Plaintiff. [Doc. No. 64.] On April 25 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed this motion to retax costs. [Doc. No. 65.] No opposition has been 26 filed. 27 28 1 DISCUSSION 2 Plaintiff moves for an order setting aside the Clerk’s order taxing costs in favor of 3 defendants. Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that “[u]nless a 4 federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs–other than attorneys 5 fees–should be allowed to the prevailing party.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1). Any party 6 seeking relief from the Clerk’s order taxing costs must file and serve such motion within 7 five (5) days after receipt of the order taxing costs. See id. The Ninth Circuit explains that 8 “[b]y its terms, [Rule 54(d)(1)] creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs to a 9 prevailing party, but vests in the district court discretion to refuse to award costs.” 10 Association of Mexican-American Educators v. State of California, 231 F.3d 572, 591 11 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). However, the Court’s discretion is not unlimited; a 12 district court must “specify reasons” for its refusal to award costs. Subscription 13 Television, Inc. v. Southern Cal. Theatre Owners Ass’n, 576 F.2d 230, 234 (9th Cir. 14 1978). 15 A district court does not abuse its discretion by refusing to award costs to a 16 prevailing party based on the losing party’s limited financial resources or where it is 17 determined there was misconduct on the part of the prevailing party. See National Org. 18 for Women v. Bank of Cal., 680 F.2d 1291, 1294 (9th Cir.1982). Conversely, the Ninth 19 Circuit has determined that the district court will abuse its discretion by denying a losing 20 civil rights plaintiff’s motion to re-tax costs if it does not consider (1) the plaintiff's 21 limited financial resources; or (2) “the chilling effect of imposing such high costs on 22 future civil rights litigants.” Ass’n of Mexican-American Educators, 231 F.3d at 591. 23 Here, Plaintiff’s counsel argues that Plaintiff has no assets to pay any portion of the 24 defendant’s costs. [Doc. No. 65 at 5.] While Plaintiff’s counsel does not provide any 25 evidentiary support for that argument (such as Plaintiff’s declaration or prison trust 26 account), given that Plaintiff is incarcerated and defendants have not filed any opposition 27 to this motion, the Court will accept Plaintiff’s counsel’s representation that Plaintiff is 28 indigent. Given Plaintiff’s limited financial resources and the fact that this was a civil 1 || rights case, the Court finds cause to refuse the award of costs. Ass ’n of Mexican- 2 ||American Educators, 231 F.3d at 591. 3 CONCLUSION 4 For the reasons set forth above, the motion to retax costs [Doc. No. 65] is 5 || GRANTED, and the Order Taxing Costs [Doc. NO. 64] is HEREBY SET ASIDE. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 ||Dated: September 14, 2022 € Z 8 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo ? United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28