Opinion
NO. CIV. S-08-3069 LKK/GGH P
04-12-2013
CHARLES ROBERT GORTON, Plaintiff, v. TODD, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
The court is in receipt of Defendants' Bill of Costs, totaling $9,145.54. Defs' Bill of Costs, ECF No. 231. Plaintiff objects, asserting that he is indigent and that taxing costs again him would be inequitable. Pl's Obj., ECF No. 232. For the reasons provided herein, the court declines to award costs to Defendants.
This case arose from the medical treatment of Plaintiff Charles Robert Gorton, a state prisoner, by Defendants Robert Hawkins and Sahir Naseer, physicians for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff brought claims against Defendants for their delays in treatment of his kidney disorder, arguing that such delays constituted medical malpractice and violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment. Following trial, the jury found in favor of Defendants on all claims.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) governs the taxation of costs to the prevailing party in a civil matter. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), unless a court order provides otherwise, costs (other than attorney's fees) "should be allowed to the prevailing party." This rule creates a presumption that costs will be taxed against the losing party. Ass'n of Mexican-American Educators v. California, 231 F.3d 572, 591-93 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). However, if the losing party shows why costs should not be awarded, the rule "vests in the district court discretion to refuse to award costs." Id., at 591; Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) ("the losing party must show why costs should not be awarded"). If the court declines to award costs, it must state its reasons, giving the reviewing court an opportunity to determine if that discretion was abused. Save Our Valley, 335 F.3d at 945.
In the Eastern District of California, this rule is implemented by Local Rule 292. E.D. Cal. R. 292 (2013).
In considering Plaintiff's request that costs be denied, this court considers: the losing party's limited financial resources; the chilling effect of imposing such high costs on future civil rights litigants; whether the issues in the case are close and difficult; and whether Plaintiff's case, although unsuccessful, had some merit. Ass'n of Mexican-American Educators, 231 F.3d at 592-93.
It appears undisputed that Plaintiff, a state prisoner, is indigent. At the initiation of this lawsuit, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, in which he attested that he was paid $0.10 per hour and that he had no other assets aside from $450.00 held in an account at Altura Credit Union. Pl's Application, ECF No. 2. Plaintiff has recently reiterated that he is indigent, in response to Defendants' submitted bill of costs. See Pl's Obj., ECF No. 232, at 1. The court finds that taxing Plaintiff $9,145.54 in costs would chill future civil rights litigants, especially those of modest means.
The court further finds that the issues in this case were close, and that Plaintiff's case had some merit, notwithstanding the jury verdict against him. This court denied Defendants' motion for summary judgment, in part, because each party proffered the testimony of experts, who had reached contrary conclusions as to whether the actions of Defendants Hawkins and Naseer fell within the applicable standards of care. Because the jury's finding turned, in large part, upon the weight given to each expert's testimony, the issues presented in this case were close and difficult.
Accordingly, the court exercises its discretion to decline to tax costs in favor of Defendants in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________________
LAWRENCE K. KARLTON
SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT