Opinion
Case No. C05-1443C.
October 28, 2005
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' motion for costs incurred in defending a previously dismissed action (Dkt. No. 9). Having considered the papers filed by the parties and finding oral argument unnecessary, the Court DENIES Defendants' motion for the following reasons.
Under Rule 41(d), the Court may order the plaintiff to pay costs incurred by the defendant in defending a previous suit "based upon or including the same claim against the same defendant." FED. R. CIV. P. 41(d). This rule confers broad discretion on the district courts to "prevent vexatious suits and secure the payment of costs, but a court will be reluctant to stay an action brought in good faith, especially when a plaintiff financially is unable to pay the former costs." Phoenix Canada Oil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 78 F.R.D. 445, 448 (D. Del. 1978).
As an initial matter, the Court finds that Plaintiff's current suit is based on the same claims against the same defendants as his previously suit ( compare C05-01442C, Dkt. No. 1, with C03-2614Z, Dkt. No. 1), and that Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the previous action ( see C03-2614Z, Dkt. No. 12). The Court nonetheless declines to order Plaintiff to pay Defendant's costs, or to stay the action.
Whatever the reasons for Plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of the earlier action, he has made a sufficient showing that he is financially unable to pay Defendants' costs ( see Dkt. No. 12), and that to so order would effectively bar Plaintiff from federal court. Cf. Gregory v. Dimock, 285 F.2d 717, 718 (2nd Cir. 1961) (setting aside stay order that "effectively prevents an indigent seaman from obtaining access to the federal court to have the merits of his claims adjudicated . . . despite the federal policy of permitting seamen with personal injury claims to sue without prepayment of fees or the furnishing of security for costs [under] 28 U.S.C. § 1916").
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants' motion.
SO ORDERED.