Opinion
Civil Action No. 98-cv-02031-PSF-OES.
September 30, 2005
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REVIEW COSTS
This matter comes before the Court on the plaintiff's Motion to Review Taxation of Costs (Dkt. # 449), filed pro se by plaintiff on January 31, 2005. Defendants filed their opposition on February 3, 2005. The plaintiff's motion was referred to the Magistrate Judge, but the record reveals that it has not yet been ruled upon. It appears that there may be some confusion due to the fact that a second bill of costs was entered by the Clerk of Court on April 20, 2005. However, as explained below, the second bill of costs related only to the costs of Defendant Smith, whereas the costs awarded on January 20, 2005 pertained to all defendants "other than Defendant Smith." Accordingly, the reference to the Magistrate Judge is hereby WITHDRAWN, and the Court will address plaintiff's motion.
On December 10, 2004 this Court granted defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and directed an allowance of costs to the defendants. On January 20, 2005, the Clerk of the Court taxed costs against plaintiff and for all defendants except Defendant Smith in the amount of $891.59 (Dkt. #446). On April 20, 2005, the Clerk of the Court taxed costs in favor of Defendant Smith and against plaintiff in the amount of $369 (Dkt. # 460). Plaintiff did not file for review of that taxation of costs.
Plaintiff asserts that the taxation of costs entered on January 20, 2005 is erroneous because she is an inmate who is financially unable to pay such costs, and because she has not been receiving copies of the documents that were mailed to her by defendants' counsel. Plaintiff provides no authority for the proposition that costs may not be taxed against an inmate. Moreover, the plaintiff's asserted non-receipt of mail, even if true, does not provide good grounds to vacate the taxation entered by the Clerk of the Court on January 20, 2005.
Accordingly, plaintiff's Motion to Review Taxation of Costs (Dkt. # 449) is DENIED.