Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03014/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03014-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROMERO,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

 FREDERICK ET AL,

Defendant. /

No. C05-03014 MJJ

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

REVIEW OF CLERK’S TAXATION OF

COSTS

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Plaintiff Jose Angel Martinez Romero’s Motion For Review Of Clerk’s

Taxation Of Costs. (Docket No. 137.) Defendant opposes the Motion. Having considered the

parties’ submissions, the Court deems the Motion appropriate for resolution without oral argument.

Accordingly, the Court VACATES the hearing in this matter, GRANTS the Motion, and

declines to award costs in this action.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On July 25, 2005, Plaintiff field a complaint against Defendants CHP Officer Dan Frederick

and the California Highway Patrol alleging that Defendants used excessive force in arresting him. 

On September 29, 2005, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his claims against the California Highway

Patrol. The action came before the Court for jury trial in March 2007. On March 14, 2007, the jury

found in favor of Defendant Frederick on Plaintiff’s excessive force claim. On March 26, 2007, the

Court entered judgment in favor of Defendant Frederick.

Case 3:05-cv-03014-MJJ Document 143 Filed 01/14/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 “Indigency is a factor that the district court may properly consider in deciding whether to award costs.” Stanley

v. University of Southern California, 178 F.3d 169, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999). However, the burden is on the losing party to

substantiate a claim of indigency. See Terry v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2007 WL 3231716 at *5 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2007); Corder

v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 162 F.3d 924, 929 (7th Cir. 1998). 

2

On April 9, 2007, Defendant Frederick submitted a Bill of Costs, requesting an award of

$8,519.20 in costs. Plaintiff submitted an opposition. On September 28, 2007, the Clerk taxed

$7,213.17 in costs against Plaintiff.

On October 3, 2007, Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking the Court’s review of the

Clerk’s taxation of costs. Plaintiff contends that no costs should be taxed in this case. Defendant

Frederick filed an opposition, and Plaintiff filed a reply.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), the prevailing party in a lawsuit may recover

its costs “unless the court otherwise directs.” Rule 54(d) “creates a presumption in favor of

awarding costs to a prevailing party, but vests in the district court discretion to refuse to award

costs.” Association of Mexican-American Educators v. State of California, 231 F.3d 572, 592 (9th

Cir. 2000) (en banc). The losing party bears the burden of making a showing that an award would

be inequitable under the circumstances. See National Information Servs. v. TRW, Inc., 51 F.3d 1470,

1472 (9th Cir. 1995), overruled in part on other grounds, 231 F.3d 572 (9th Cir. 2000).

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff asserts multiple grounds for a denial of an award of costs, including Plaintiff’s

alleged indigence, the chilling effect of imposing costs on civil rights litigants, the public importance

of the issues in the case, the closeness of the case, and the merits of plaintiff’s case. In the

alternative, Plaintiff challenges the award of specific costs, including the cost of deposition

subpoenas and deposition transcripts.

A combination of several of these factors lead the Court to decline to award costs in this

matter. Although Plaintiff has not presented evidence sufficient to show actual indigence,1

 the

record before the Court makes clear that Plaintiff, a seasonal construction worker without legal

immigration status making no more than $15 per hour – is an individual of modest means. There is

a significant economic disparity between Plaintiff and the California Highway Patrol, the state entity

Case 3:05-cv-03014-MJJ Document 143 Filed 01/14/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

 Defendant’s Bill of Costs (Docket No. 134) indicates that the California Highway Patrol is the claimant seeking

to recover costs in this action.

3

seeking to recover costs in this action.2 Against this backdrop, imposing the cost bill on Plaintiff

would lead to a harsh result that could chill individual litigants of modest means seeking to vindicate

important rights under the civil rights laws. See Schaulis v. CTB/McGraw-Hill Inc., 496 F. Supp.

666, 680 (N.D.C.A. 1980); Stanley v. University of Southern California, 178 F.3d 1069, 1080 (9th

Cir. 1999).

The closeness of the case also leads the Court to conclude that an award of costs would be

inequitable in this situation. There was sharply conflicting testimony presented at trial regarding

Defendant Frederick’s conduct and use of force. The jury’s evaluation of the witnesses’ competing

versions of events turned largely on credibility issues, and the answers were far from obvious. 

Although Plaintiff was ultimately not successful, his case was not without merit.

CONCLUSION

Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court regards it as inequitable to impose

the State’s requested cost bill on the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court VACATES the hearing in this

matter, GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion, and declines to award costs in this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2008 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-03014-MJJ Document 143 Filed 01/14/08 Page 3 of 3